Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

Messages of Condolence

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that I have received copies of resolutions of sympathy on the death of Sir Winston Churchill passed by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America and by the National Congress of the Republic of Venezuela, and will have them placed in the Library for the inspection of hon. Members.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Nationalised Industries and Government Departments (Prices and Charges)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will place before the price review body the current increases in prices charged by Government Departments and nationalised industries.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether in his inquiry into increased prices he intends to investigate the recent increase in prices in the nationalised industries.

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State

for Economic Affairs what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that there is no element of inflation in the recent increases in prices announced by nationalised industries.

Mr. Kitson: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make inquiries into the recent price increases announced by the nationalised industries.

Mr. Heffer: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will take steps to put before the price review body the current price increases charged by nationalised industries and in Government Departments.

Mr. Webster: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will ask the chairman of the nationalised industries to explain the reasons for their recent and proposed rises in prices and charges.

Mr. Chapman: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the proposed price review body will be empowered to consider current increases in prices charged by Government departments and publicly-owned industries.

The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. Austen Albu): The reasons for recent increases in prices and charges affecting the public at large have already been explained by the nationalised industries concerned to the Ministers responsible. My right hon. Friend sees no need at present for further investigation.
I do not exclude the possibility of prices charged by Government Departments being referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes if circumstances made this desirable.

Mr. Lloyd: Does that mean, therefore, that the Minister agrees with the dictum of Lord Robens that in the case of nationalised industries increased wages costs are properly absorbed if one-third is dealt with by increased efficiency and two-thirds are put to deficit and saddled upon the taxpayer?

Mr. Albu: The question of the position of the National Coal Board is at present


under investigation, which, of course, had been left for far too long by the previous Administration.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that despite the capital investment of £4,500 million in the last 10 years in the nationalised electricity, coal and gas industries, the average price rise is 34 per cent, in the nationalised industries? Will he tell his right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State to take more care of the beam in his own eye and less of the mote in the eyes of his brothers and to do something about the nationalised industries?

Mr. Albu: I would have thought that in the case of some of the nationalised industries, particularly electricity, the price rise has been much less than in most other commodities. In the case of the gas industry, there has been a reduction in price by one board recently and there may well be reductions in price by other boards.

Sir Richard Glyn: Will the Minister tell his right hon. Friend that the increase in charges by nationalised industries has not only increased the cost of manufactures but will also very greatly increase the household expenditure of the average consumer? It is therefore inflationary. If the First Secretary is doing nothing about it, as I presume from the Minister's answer, it is high time that he did.

Mr. Albu: As I said, I have no reason to believe that, taking the nationalised industries as a whole, their price rises have been higher than other commodities in general use. I would have thought that the prices and rates of the nationalised industries are much more under public control than those of any other private industry.

Mr. Kitson: Is the Minister aware that his reply is most unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that a lot of my constituents are very worried about the recent electricity increases, and will he tell his right hon. Friend that his outbursts would be taken a little more seriously if he treated nationalised industries in the same way as he treats the private sector?

Mr. Albu: This is exactly what my right hon. Friend is doing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to inform his

constituents that one of the reasons for the price rise by the electricity board referred to is the very high target return on capital imposed by the previous Government.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that for years the private sector has been sustained and underpinned by the public sector due to the policies of the last Government? In order to get the position quite clear, will he consider giving us a comparison in price rises between the private and public sectors within the last 12 months?

Mr. Albu: That is something which might be considered. It is a fact that, at any rate in the early years of the previous Administration, the prices in nationalised industries were artificially held down to the advantage of the private sector. It was not until the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries drew attention to this interference by Ministers with the price fixing of the nationalised industries that the previous Administration forced the nationalised industries to raise their prices.

Mr. Webster: Is the Economic Secretary aware that there have been very substantial price rises in many solid fuels in recent months? As the First Secretary is taking on inquisitorial powers over private enterprise, it is a pity that he is not here to answer Questions on this subject.

Mr. Albu: I am not the Economic Secretary; I am the Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs. I think that my right hon. Friend has confidence in my capacity to answer Questions. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that the nationalised industries are subject to a considerable degree of Ministerial inquiry, he should think again.

Mr. Heath: Is not the Minister of State saying that if he and his colleagues are happy about the nationalised industries and their prices, nothing more needs to be done? Is not this completely unsatisfactory? Just because the Government are satisfied with the prices charged by the nationalised industries, that is no reason why they should not go through this procedure. Secondly, while we are pleased to welcome the Minister of State here to answer Questions, would he convey to his right hon. Friend that, since


he is the head of the Department and this is the first occasion in seven weeks on which he is top of the list, the House of Commons expects him to be here to answer Questions?

Mr. Albu: The only part of that supplementary question which needs a reply is whether or not the procedure for private industry should be adopted, for nationalised industries. The answer which I gave was, yes; where we think it necessary it will be adopted.

Sir Richard Glyn: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Economic Development Plan

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, when he expects to announce the Government's long-term development plan.

Mr. Hamling: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now make a statement on the Government's plan to deal with long-term economic weaknesses.

Mr. Albu: The preparation of the economic development plan for the next five years is going ahead and it should be complete in the summer or early autumn.
Meanwhile, we shall be discussing a first outline with the National Economic Development Council, and hope to be able to publish a report following that discussion.
One of the main purposes of the plan is to correct the weaknesses in the economy, and to use our national resources more efficiently and in accordance with national priorities.

Mr. Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the verdict of the Economist that this plan, when published, will be merely a public relations exercise? Is the delay due to the fact that his hon. Friend cannot reach agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Albu: I think that the editorial writers of the Economist might wait until they see what the plan contains. If the

right hon. Gentleman really believes that in a matter of four months we can produce a plan for the economy after all the years that hon. Members opposite were in office, I do not think his own personal experience is of much value to him.

Mr. Hamling: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on assuming his office? Would he agree that to produce a plan of this sort within six months is more than an exercise in public relations when one considers the record of the previous Administration?

Mr. Albu: I assure my hon. Friend that this matter is being proceeded with as fast as possible in my Department. However, it requires a very great deal of work.

Mr. Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to industry now that when this plan comes forward from the Government it will interfere with private industry as little as is humanly possible?

Mr. Albu: Our experience is that private industry, on the whole, welcomes the setting of these sorts of targets so that it has some idea of what it should do in the next four or five years.

Mr. Duffy: Is my hon. Friend aware that the public-spirited attitude of some private firms in releasing personnel to my right hon. Friend's Department in order to prepare the plan is in striking contrast to the sour attitude of some hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Albu: That is certainly very true.

Planning Boards

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the functions of the proposed planning boards in England and Wales will be the same as those of the proposed Scottish planning board.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the composition and terms of reference of the economic planning boards in England, Wales and Scotland will be identical.

Mr. Shore: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he proposes a


different membership for the economic planning boards in Wales and Scotland from those in the six English regions.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): There will be no difference in the functions of the board in England, Scotland and Wales. In Scotland and Wales the chairmen of the boards will be officials of the Scottish and Welsh Offices and not of the Department of Economic Affairs and some Departmental functions will be represented by the Scottish and Welsh Departments rather than by Departments which cover the whole country.

Mr. Campbell: Who will co-ordinate the activities of all these boards? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer have any voice in this matter?

Mr. Rodgers: As I say, the chairmen of the boards, with the exception of those for Scotland and Wales, will be civil servants from the Department of Economic Affairs. We shall be responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the boards. All Government Departments will be involved in the overall policy with which the boards will be concerned.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware how pleased we on this side of the House are that the Government are taking effective steps to bring new industry and employment to areas of under-employment? Will he let me know when the Government hope to announce the plans for the South-East?

Mr. Rodgers: There is a later Question on the Order Paper about the Government's intentions on the South-East.

Stationery Office Publications (Prices)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether, in his inquiry into increased prices, he intends to investigate the recent increases in the cost of publications charged by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Mr. Albu: No, Sir.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Did not the hon. Gentleman say a few minutes ago that he might refer Government Departments to the National Board for Prices and

Incomes? If so, is he aware that the Stationery Office put up the cost of the Ministry of Labour Gazette by 40 per cent. between December and January? Is not that a disgraceful example to the rest of industry in private control?

Mr. Albu: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of my right hon. Friend's new board. It is not to say that there shall be no price increases but that they have to be justified. I understand that there has been no general increase in the price of Stationery Office publications since 1961.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Should not this particular example be justified?

Hon. Members: No.

Tidal Barrages

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will initiate a review of the various schemes for tidal barrages, particularly on the north-west coast of the United Kingdom, such review to take into account up-to-date figures with regard to the economic benefits such barrages could bring in respect of water and power supplies and better road communications.

Mr. Peter Mahon: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he proposes to take to investigate the case for the Morecambe barrage and other similar barrage schemes.

Mr. William Rodgers: Proposals for barrage schemes in the Solway Firth, Morecambe Bay and the Dee Estuary are already being carefully examined in the context of regional economic planning. It is hoped to make a statement shortly about the Government's conclusions.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is not just a matter of the generation of electricity, although barrages may be on the verge of being economic for the purpose, but that, taking into account the use of barrages for roads and the conservation of water, they may well be fully economic in the future.

Mr. Rodgers: We recognise that. There are very many factors which should be taken into account.

Mr. Heath: The first study for the Morecambe scheme, in particular, was put in hand by us when we were in power and would have helped us to decide whether there should be a full feasibility study of the scheme, which might cost up to £250,000. The result of that study was expected last October. Has it been received? Will the hon. Gentleman be able to announce a decision about the next stage of the feasibility study in his statement?

Mr. Rodgers: That is certainly what we wish to do. There is no wish on our part to delay matters. But it was most important to consider all these schemes together and not the merit of any one of them in isolation.

Mr. Mapp: In considering sympathetically, as he is doing, the feasibility scheme for the Morecambe Bay barrage, will my hon. Friend remember that that is a long-term project and that it should not hamper in any way the many short-term water requirements of the Manchester conurbation?

Mr. Rodgers: We certainly recognise that there is an immediate problem here. Although we are looking at the possibility of such a feasibility study, a full inquiry, which itself would be very expensive, would take some time. We will not delay in dealing with important short-term needs.

Aircraft Industry (Research and Development Teams)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps have been taken to find alternative work for research and development teams and for operatives in the aircraft and aerospace industries.

Mr. Albu: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation described to the House on 9th February the new military and civil projects inside the aircraft industry which are at present under study. We hope, of course, that changes in the aircraft programme will also enable some operatives and design staff to leave aircraft work for employment in civilian industry generally, where they are badly needed. Departments are making an urgent survey of any special problems

there may be in particular localities and for particular classes of skills, where the employment position is not as strong as it is nationally.

Mrs. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware how favourably this contrasts with the behaviour of the last Government in 1960 and in 1962 at a time when there was redundancy in the industry? Will the Department consider the placing of civil research and development contracts in some of the factories concerned?

Mr. Albu: All these matters are being urgently looked into, but I must point out that there is a great shortage of labour in many branches of the engineering industry. One of the objects of making these cancellations was to get a transfer of resources into industries where they would make some money.

Mr. Edelman: When my hon. Friend talks about special problems, will he say in particular what he intends to do about the great aircraft works at Baginton, near Coventry, where 5,000 men are likely to be made redundant in an area with only 2,000 vacancies within daily travelling distance?

Mr. Albu: I cannot at present make any comment on individual factories or regions. I should very much like my hon. Friend to have a word with me in about six months' time if there has been no change in the situation by then.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Minister aware that many of the highly-trained scientists who have been employed in the aircraft industry will not be content to go into lesser paid jobs and that unless he does something to satisfy these men, we may lose them from the country?

Mr. Albu: As to the highly-trained scientists and engineers, I admit that there may be a special problem and I am taking a particular interest in this. I believe that it would not be difficult to give these people some sort of retraining or re-education and make them valuable in other branches of industry.

Economic Planning Council, South-West Region

Mr. Peyton: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will give details of the membership of the Regional


Economic Council for the South-West; whether all county councils will be represented; and if members are to be elected or official.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the composition of the Regional Economic Council for the South-West.

Mr. Dean: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the membership of the Regional Council for the South-West.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will announce the Government's regional plans for the South-West.

Mr. Hayman: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he expects to be able to take steps to secure the personnel for the Regional Economic Planning Council for the South-West and to give more information about its composition.

Mr. William Rodgers: We hope to announce the membership of the Economic Planning Council for the South-West Region before the Easter Recess. On representation I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) on 21st January. We told the local authority associations in December that we are prepared to consider local government officers as well as elected representatives as members of the councils.

Mr. Peyton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer does not add much to the information already available? Will he convey to his right hon. Friend the fear and concern of many county councils that they will have imposed upon them an organisation which may suit his right hon. Friend but does not suit them and will deny to them what they feel are the rights of representation to which they are fully entitled?

Mr. Rodgers: I was in the South-West for two days earlier this week, and I found little such fear but rather a real anxiety to make the new planning machinery work.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Will the Joint Under-Secretary explain the reason

for this delay? Does he not recall that on page 3 of "Let's Go with Labour", the manifesto on which his party fought the General Election, appear these words:
Labour is ready. Poised to swing its plans into instant operation".

Mr. Speaker: Order. Verbatim quotations from documents, of whatever value, are out of order.

Mr. Dean: Is the Minister aware that local authorities are particularly disturbed about the planning aspects of the councils and, indeed, of the boards? Can he give an assurance that there is no intention of taking away from the local authorities the powers which they now have over the planning of development in their areas?

Mr. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend has already made it perfectly clear that there is certainly no intention to usurp the proper function of local authorities or to take away any of their existing powers.

Mr. William Clark: If the Minister is saying that all these representatives from local bodies will be considered, will he ask his right hon. Friend why, in the National Economic Development Council, he continues to exclude the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Rodgers: That does not arise on this Question.

Mr. Webster: As the Minister of Transport has announced that before any rail closures are proposed a regional plan is to be produced, can the Joint Under-Secretary tell us what association there will be between the two sorts of regional plans? What conversations will he have with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources on this subject?

Mr. Rodgers: As my right hon. Friend has made clear, the purpose of the boards is to make sure that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing, which has certainly not been the case in the past. We shall take full account of the needs of communications, whether rail or road, in all our regional planning.

Price Increases

Mr. Fisher: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what he attributes the recent rise in prices; and what measures he proposes to remedy this.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what replies he has received to the letters he sent to 18 trade associations and individual companies to find out why prices had gone up; whether the price review body will sit in different regions of Great Britain; what will be its personnel and procedure; and how he will implement its recommendations.

Mr. Prior: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what replies he has received to his inquiries regarding higher prices.

Mr. Albu: The replies received give reasons that vary according to the circumstances of the industry or trade. But higher labour costs feature in nearly all of them. This is one of the reasons why, as announced by my right hon. Friend on 11th February, we are setting up the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Details of the arrangements to be made are given in the White Paper on the Machinery of Prices and Incomes Policy (Cmnd. 2577).

Mr. Fisher: Would the Minister of State care to acknowledge that his right hon. Friends are also making their contribution to the rising cost of everything by the petrol tax, the higher Bank Rate, higher local authority interest rates, Income Tax which is to come in April and National Insurance contributions? Do not all these things add to the rising cost of everything, too?

Mr. Albu: There are, no doubt, a number of factors which increase costs. It is to ensure that price rises are based on genuine increases of cost and not upon excessive profits that we are setting up the board.[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]

Mr. William Hamilton: What evidence is there in my hon. Friend's Department of a deliberate conspiracy by manufacturers and retailers to sabotage the efforts of the Government to get an incomes policy?

Mr. Albu: One of the gratifying things about this is that we have a good deal of support from manufacturers and from some very considerable retailers. There is no doubt that the better, most progressive and moat efficient manufacturers and retailers

are supporting what the Government are doing.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Does the Minister of State recall that the Labour Party's election manifesto said that the success of the national plan would depend upon the new and relevant policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member will help me. What he was saying sounded like a verbatim quotation. If he tells me that it was not, I will not stop him.

Mr. Stratton Mills: It was an abbreviation, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat the question. Does not the Minister recall that part of his party's election manifesto was based upon saying that the national plan could not succeed without their new and relevant measures to check the persistent rise in prices? Why have the party opposite abandoned this in practice?

Mr. Albu: That is an extraordinary supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is extremely easy to answer. We have just set up the machinery for dealing with those very matters.

Prices and Incomes Policy (Talks)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1) what plans he has for negotiating a statement of intent concerning incomes policy with that section of the population who are neither trade unionists nor employers;
(2) what discussions he has had about the prices and incomes review body, which it is proposed to set up, with that section of the population who are neither trade unionists nor employers.

Mr. Albu: In addition to detailed discussions with the T.U.C. and the four national employers' organisations, the responsible Ministers have had talks with the main groups not directly represented in the discussions. There has also been general discussion on prices and incomes policy on N.E.D.C. In all these talks the Government have throughout had in mind the interests of the community as a whole and not just of particular sections.

Captain Elliot: Is the Minister aware that that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory


Answer? Is he aware that there are millions of people who are neither trade unionists nor employers and that they are sick and tired of those two bodies coming to arrangements, often under the threat of economic blackmail, which impose a burden the result of which invariably falls upon the shoulders of this other section of the population? Will the Minister please initiate discussions with this section of the population, who are neither trade unionists nor employers, about an incomes policy? As to the price review body, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that independent people are appointed to it to represent the points of view of that section of the population who are neither trade unionists nor employers?

Mr. Albu: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for answering his own question for me. If he reads the White Paper, he will find that this is exactly what we are doing.
I was not sure whether he was referring to other types of employees, like salaried employees, not represented on the T.U.C. If he was, he will find that I answered his question. If he was referring to old-age pensioners, perhaps I might point out that it is not in their interests for prices and wages to continue to rise and so cause inflation.

Mr. William Clark: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the mere setting up of a price review body does not absolve the Government from the responsibility of carrying out a nationally sound economic policy? Is he further aware that the Socialist paradise of Sweden has had a price review body since 1957, yet in the last 12 years the cost of living there has gone up faster than in this country?

Mr. Albu: I am aware of both those things, and also of the fact that the rate of economic growth in Sweden is very much greater than it has been in this country.

Mr. Buchan: We know that only in the nationalised industries are the interests of the consumers taken care of, but will my hon. Friend ensure that the interests of the consumers are taken care of in other sections of the economy?

Mr. Albu: Certainly that is the intention.

Departmental Staff

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the total staff of his Department in each grade.

Mr. Albu: Three hundred and fifty-eight, including eight part-time staff. With permission I will circulate the analysis by grades in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Digby: Does the hon. Gentleman say that there has been a corresponding reduction in other Departments? Is not there something to be said for taking on more typists to get around to writing to the nationalised industries?

Mr. Albu: The answer to the substantial part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is 20 from the Treasury, and 65 from the Board of Trade.

Mr. Peter Emery: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many persons employed in his Ministry are on loan from industry? Is it not true that these persons are not paid by the Government, but are still being paid by industry? Is it not incorrect trade union practice that men should be employed and not paid by their proper employers?

Mr. Albu: The hon. Gentleman will find the figures for which he has asked in the OFFICIAL REPORT when the analysis by grades is published. The rest of his remarks seem to be typical of hon. Gentlemen opposite who object when industry helps the Government to try to achieve their objectives.

Miss Quennell: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he anticipates an increase in the number of staff in his Department as work develops, or does he contemplate receiving assistance from and liaison with local government authorities in the areas concerned?

Mr. Albu: In regard to regional planning boards?

Miss Quennell: Yes.

Mr. Albu: Obviously we shall cooperate with local government authorities, but they will not provide the staff.

Mr. Peter Emery: On a point of order. In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Speaker: We must get rid of the adverb in that form of notice.

Following is the analysis:


Staff of the Department of Economic Affairs at 15th February, 1965


Permanent Under-Secretary of State
1


Deputy Under-Secretaries of State
2


Assistant Under-Secretaries of State
6


Assistant Secretaries
13


Director General
13


Deputy Director General
1


Assistant Directors
3


Senior Economic Advisers
2


Economic Advisers, Consultants and Assistants
13+4Part-time


Chief Statistician
1


Statistician
1


Assistant Research Officer
1


Chief Industrial Adviser
1


Industrial Advisers
5


Chief Information Officer
1


Principal Information Officers
2


Senior Information Officers
2


Assistant Information Officer
1


Special Press Advisers
2


Principals
22


Assistant Principals
5


Senior Executive Officers
14


Higher Executive Officers
15


Executive Officers
30


Higher Clerical Officer
1


Clerical Officers
43


Clerical Officer (Secretaries)
42


Clerical Assistants
39


Chief Superintendent of Typists
1


Superintendents of Typists
5


Shorthand Typists, Typists, Duplicator Operators
42+4 Part-time


Senior Paperkeeper
1


Paperkeepers
3


Senior Messengers, Messengers and Porters
28


Total
350+8 Part-time

Prices and Incomes (Review Body)

Mr. Fisher: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now announce the names of the members and the terms of reference of the prices and incomes review body.

Mr. Albu: It is hoped to announce the names shortly. The terms of reference will be contained in a Royal Warrant.

Mr. Fisher: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what sanction the board intends to apply if its recommendations on prices or incomes are disregarded, how it can prevent inflationary wage demands, and how his right hon. Friend hopes to control prices if he does not, as I assume he does not, intend to control wages?

Mr. Albu: As my right hon. Friend has explained, it is intended that the board should operate in the first instance without further statutory powers, but if the hon. Gentleman refers to the White Paper, he will see that it was agreed by both sides of industry that if it was found necessary to take further powers in the future, we should have to take them.

Mr. Heath: Can the hon. Gentleman give a clear undertaking that he will not legislate to enforce wage agreements or limit wages?

Mr. Albu: I should think, yes, we could give that assurance.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not put on the board the Controller of the Stationery Office?

Concord Project

Mr. Marten: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is now the economic priority of the Concord project.

Mr. Albu: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation said in his statement to the House of 20th January, the Government intend to press forward purposefully with the project. Economic, as well as other considerations, were taken fully into account when this decision was made.

Mr. Marten: That does not answer the Question. I asked what was the economic priority of the Concord. Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that in the White Paper of 26th October, in paragraph 13(6), the Concord was classified as of low priority? Does he realise that if the Concord is to succeed commercially, the time lead over the Americans is the essence of the whole thing? Will he give


an assurance that the Government mean to press on energetically with the Concord?

Mr. Albu: The Government intend to press on energetically with the Concord. They also intend to examine its economic potential from time to time, and not to continue with an open-ended commitment.

Mr. Marten: I asked what was the economic priority now given to the Concord, and my Question has not been answered. Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is given a high priority or a low priority?

Mr. Albu: It obviously has a fairly high priority, or we would not be spending on it the money that we are doing.

Manufactures (Supplies)

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how he proposes to encourage British industry to supply those manufactures which swell the import bill in time of expansion.

Mr. Albu: Through action designed to stimulate greater efficiency and competitiveness throughout British industry and to improve the standard of design and technological innovation.

Mr. Morrison: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the only step that has been taken so far is the negative action of imposing the surcharge? Is it not time that some proper stimulus was given to British manufacturers to decrease the need for imports?

Mr. Albu: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that we have provided a rebate for exporters as well, in addition to many other measures taken to encourage exports.

Mr. Tinn: Will my hon. Friend not be discouraged by the failure of hon. Gentlemen opposite to give due credit for the improvement which has been achieved in our economic position by the Government's action?

Mr. Albu: There are considerable signs that this improvement is taking place.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the only way in which manufactures from abroad

can be manufactured in this country is for us to be competitive, and that everything that he and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done since they got into office has been to inflate costs? Does he appreciate that we must not continue with our present high rate of taxation if we are to be competitive with people from abroad?

Mr. Albu: The 15 per cent. surcharge certainly gave a breathing space to industry in which to become more competitive, and it is about time that some of them did so.

Regional Planning Boards

Mr. Maxwell: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he will announce the chairmen and members of the regional planning boards.

Mr. William Rodgers: The boards will consist of officials of the Departments concerned with regional planning under the chairmanship of an official of our Department. We hope that some of the boards will start work next month.

Mr. Maxwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that these regional economic councils will result in one of the biggest advances in planning in recent years? Is he further aware that this will help restore regional planning to its proper place in our national affairs? Finally, will he tell the House how he proposes to ensure that the members of these boards act in the interests of the whole region and not in the sectional interests of the whole region, and not in the sectional interests of the authorities which may nominate them?

Mr. Rodgers: Members of the boards will consist of officials of the Department concerned. My hon. Friend may be thinking of the economic planning councils. We shall certainly ensure that the membership is representative of the region, and will do the planning job that he has in mind.

Mr. Thorpe: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it can be guaranteed that they are fully representative if there is to be no elective process and no democratic method of selection, but merely an appointment from Whitehall, which is presumed to know best?

Mr. Rodgers: The Question was about the boards but the supplementary question is about the councils.

Mr. G. Campbell: Will the First Secretary be careful not to expose too much of this planning machinery too soon, in order not to shock Members of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Heath: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us which boards he is proposing to set up first? Secondly, can he confirm that "board" is another name for the machinery already created for dealing with the North-East and the North-West?

Mr. Rodgers: The councils and boards in all the six regions of England already indicated by my right hon. Friend will be announced, we hope, before the Easter Recess. We are quite satisfied that the new machinery is a most important advance on anything that has been done in the past.

South-East

Mr. Maxwell: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will announce the Government's plans for the South-East region.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what progress is being made towards the implementation of the South-East Study; and with what other Departments consultation is taking place.

Mr. Boston: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the review of the South-East Study will be completed.

Mr. William Rodgers: We are making good progress on the review of policy for the South-East in consultation with all the appropriate departments. It is too soon to say when the job will be completed.

Mr. Maxwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that most people in this region view with concern the planned increase of 3½ million people in this area? Is he further aware of the urgent need to make certain that good farming land is not irretrievably lost? Finally, will he bear in mind the urgent need to know the Government's long-term plans and, further, can he tell

us whether it is true that the Channel Tunnel is likely to be abandoned?

Mr. Rodgers: We are looking very closely at the problem of the South-East, which is a very difficult one, and we are examining the study undertaken for the previous Government. As soon as we see that the position is clear we shall certainly make an announcement.

Mr. Digby: Can the Minister say whether general agreement has been reached with the Ministry of Housing on the general outline of these proposals?

Mr. Rodgers: There is full agreement with the Ministry of Housing on all matters concerning the South-East Study. Interim steps were necessary to deal with the immediate problem of London's housing. We do not intend long-term plans to be the enemy of short-term needs.

Mr. Boston: Is the Minister aware that the outcome of this review of the South-East Study is eagerly awaited in Kent, where the people were considerably disappointed that when that study of the last Government was produced it did not take into account a number of major proposals contained in the Kent Development Plan? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that he and his right hon. Friend will take into account those major points, particularly those concerning Sheppey and Aylesford?

Mr. Rodgers: I can give that assurance. We shall examine with the greatest care all the points raised by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members concerned with planning authorities in the South-East.

Mr. Allason: Since the majority of the 3½ million increase comes by way of natural increase, may we have an undertaking that the Government do not intend to interfere with the natural process of breeding?

Mr. Rodgers: Any question of interfering with the natural process of population growth is not a matter for my Department.

Mr. Lipton: If we cannot decide natural processes, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the revised proposals to be announced do not accept the 3½ million increase envisaged by the


previous Administration? Does he realise that it is of vital importance to diminish the pressure on London's housing?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes. We fully understand that the size of the population to be catered for in the 1970s and 1980s bears closely on the plans that we shall prepare. We realise in particular that the rate of migration into the South-East accepted by the previous Government is one factor in particular which must undergo the very closest scrutiny.

Mr. Heath: Does the hon. Member realise that during the election campaign his right hon. Friend rejected the whole South-East Study; that a fortnight ago his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government implemented the first half of it, and that we are now awaiting with some eagerness the moment when he himself will announce that the remainder of the study will be implemented, after an unnecessary delay?

Mr. Rodgers: The important thing is to make the right decisions. The previous Government produced a Study for the South-East which we regard in many respects as inadequate. We are examining it and the assumptions upon which it was based.

Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister.

Dame Joan Vickers: On a point of order. Question No. 27 has not been reached. I presume that I shall receive a Written Reply. May I make a correction in it, by substituting "10 sq. ft." for "100 sq. ft."? This will make a tremendous difference to the type of answer that I receive.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady's tremendous difference will be noted.

THE COMMONWEALTH

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake a Commonwealth tour as an earnest of his intention to strengthen the links between Commonwealth members and to increase trade.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): It is Her Majesty's Government's

policy to do everything possible to foster the Commonwealth connection, both in trade and other fields. I have already visited Canada and I have accepted invitations to visit India, Pakistan and Malaysia later in the year. In addition I have, of course, met leading statesmen from nearly every Commonwealth country.

Mr. Hamilton: I appreciate the energetic endeavours of my right hon. Friend in this matter, but does not he agree that in view of the ominous sounds currently being made by the Leader of the Opposition about the Common Market, which seem effectively to write off the Commonwealth, will my right hon. Friend take the advantage of this Question to announce now that he will undertake a trip of this kind to reassure our Commonwealth friends?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it needs a visit by me to the Commonwealth to provide reassurance in relation to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I thought that that was very effectively dealt with in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday. I am sure that the fears of my hon. Friend will be allayed when the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition answers some of the questions that my right hon. Friend put to him in his speech yesterday.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I say that I have sent a copy of my speech to the Foreign Secretary, so that he may read it right through?

The Prime Minister: I happen to know that my right hon. Friend has read it right through—and I read at any rate the full account of it. But there are a few unanswered questions and I am sure that the country will be delighted to have a further exposition by the right hon. Gentleman whenever he is able to give it.

Mr. Fisher: The right hon. Gentleman always talks a great deal about increasing Commonwealth trade. Can he tell us whether he now has a positive plan for expanding that trade?

The Prime Minister: This is not just a question of talk, because when we were in Government before we had a much higher proportion of trade with the Commonwealth than we have ever had


before or since. I should be glad to remind the hon. Gentleman of the devastating way in which that proportion fell during the last 13 years, and particularly in the last five years. As I have made plain, we shall be discussing at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference this year a number of plans for reversing that trend.

Mr. Heath: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that when he was in power before, all the sterling area restrictions were in operation and multilateral trade and convertibility were not possible? Is he arguing that further sterling restrictions should be introduced, to enable this to happen again?

The Prime Minister: I always thought that the right hon. Gentleman did not know much about Commonwealth trade. If he thinks that the whole of the big development in Commonwealth trade at that time was due to the fact that he mentioned I would direct him, at some time, when he has a little time to spare from other pursuits, to study the effect on Commonwealth trade of the 52 long-term contracts that we had with Commonwealth countries on primary produce.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Prime Minister if he will advise the appointment of a deputy Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State acts in this capacity when this is necessary, for example, because I am abroad.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the Prime Minister aware that a de facto coalition exists and would not he regularise this by inviting the Leader of the Liberal Party to join his Cabinet as deputy Prime Minister? Is he aware of the arrangement that has been come to by which the Liberal Party will vote vigorously against the Second Reading of the Steel Bill and absent itself during the Committee stage?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware of any such suggestion. I had not thought of making such an invitation to the right hon. Gentleman. Frankly, we are not obsessed about the Liberals as are hon. Gentlemen opposite. I did, however, notice last week that the

members of the Liberal Party were as confused and ill-informed about aviation as hon. Members on the other side of the House.

Mr. Thorpe: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the National Opinion Poll published in the Daily Mail today relating to the view taken of the leadership of, at any rate, the Conservative Party? Would not he agree that the future of that party and whether or not a deputy or indeed a successor to its leader should be found is a much more pressing and relevant issue?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but nothing that even the hon. Gentleman can say will destroy the unity with which we support the present incumbent.

DR. BEECHING

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have for requesting the continued services of Dr. Beeching when his period of service with the Railways Board comes to an end.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have no plans for the future employment of Dr. Beeching after he leaves the British Railways Board. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport told the House on 23rd December, it is Dr. Beeching's wish to return to Imperial Chemical Industries later this year.

Mr. Hamilton: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a very great pity if the nation lost the services of this very able gentleman? Would my right hon. Friend direct his attention to a leading article in the Financial Times of 11th February which talked about the agricultural industry needing a thorough investigation? Is he aware that Dr. Beeching seems to me to be the man for the job?

The Prime Minister: It is always interesting to try to speculate what supplementary question my hon. Friend really has in mind. So far as Dr. Beeching is concerned, while the whole House will wish him all success on the resumption of his activities with Imperial Chemical Industries, I am sure that at suitable


times—in view of his vast experience in both industrial and public services—were there any invitations that any of us wanted to make to him to serve the nation in any capacity, those invitations could be put forward.

TFX AIRCRAFT

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Prime Minister how he arrived at the estimate of at least £250 million saving that would result from purchasing the TFX instead of the TSR2; and whether his calculation is based on the existing TFX or a developed version of it.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 9th February to the Question by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) and the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation to a Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on the same date.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of his noble Friends yesterday in another place did not even know how many TFXs might be ordered if that decision was taken? How can the right hon. Gentleman base an evaluation on this hypothetical number?

The Prime Minister: It has never been the practice to reveal details of estimates, particularly of aircraft, in a particular programme, whether we are talking about the TFX, as in this case, or the TSR2. But the cost figures were calculated on certain assumptions not only about how many TFXs would be involved but whether they would be Mark I or Mark II.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Prime Minister is aware that the American aircraft industry would be prepared to drop the price of the TFX to any extent necessary to put the British Aircraft Corporation out of competitive business?

The Prime Minister: This I think was dealt with fully in the aviation debate last week. What I think is even more interesting, from the point of view of defence controversy, is that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has decided to drop his right hon. Friend as defence spokesman.

TSR2 AIRCRAFT

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Prime Minister whether his estimate of £300 million for the research and development cost of the TSR2 includes the cost of the 20 pre-production aircraft or only of the first nine.

The Prime Minister: The estimate includes the full cost only of the first nine aircraft.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that we are grateful to him for answering at least this Question? Why must the right hon. Gentleman slavishly copy the previous Tory Government's policy of refusing to give any information on these matters so that we may form a balanced judgment of them in this House?

The Prime Minister: Partly because, as I have explained—and as I explained during the debate on the censure Motion a fortnight ago and as my right hon. Friend explained last week—there is a great deal as yet that is still unknown about the potentialities both of the TFX Mark I and the possible potentialities of the TFX Mark II, and about the TSR2 as well.

Mr. Marten: It seems to me that the Prime Minister is going a little further than perhaps would be wise in quoting figures and prices for these numbers of aircraft. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree?

The Prime Minister: I was not quoting prices, but a broad estimate of saving which might be involved if a certain decision were taken. Indeed, I think that the time has come, if it is not overdue, when the House, when considering major expenditure programmes, should have some regard to costs and the position of the taxpayer. This has not been the position for several years, and we think it about time that it was.

Mr. Lubbock: Are we to take the word of the right hon. Gentleman for the saving which he says may be produced, or can we have some justification of it?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has any other estimates, the House would be prepared to receive them. We stated them on the basis of all the best information available to the Government who have responsibility in these matters


both in respect of seeing that the Defence Services are properly equipped and that the taxpayer has a proper protection against excessive expenditure.

MALAYSIA AND INDONESIA

Mr. Heffer: asked the Prime Minister what initiatives are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to seek ways and means for a peaceful settlement to the present conflict between Malaysia and Indonesia, in particular by means of a possible conference of the two countries under the chairmanship of Pakistan.

The Prime Minister: The British Government have consistently maintained that they would welcome a peaceful settlement of the dispute arising from Indonesia's policy of armed hostility towards Malaysia on a basis which ensured respect for Malaysia's independence and territorial integrity.
With regard to the specific question of the possibility of mediation by Pakistan, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 9th February by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to Questions from the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) and the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).

Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that the guerrilla activities have diminished within the past few weeks, would not my right hon. Friend agree that this presents a further opportunity for some initiative on the part of our Government; and also, if Pakistan is not an acceptable country, could not we consider the offer of Algeria, which is also a Moslem country, and which could be acceptable to Malaysia and Indonesia which are both Moslem countries?

The Prime Minister: The position of the Government, and I am sure of the whole House, is that we should welcome any initiative which might lead to a settlement and an end of this confrontation, provided there was no question of a settlement interfering with Malaysia as it is at present constituted. There

have been a number of suggestions for mediation. We have to make clear so far as we are concerned that we would welcome anything which would produce an honourable settlement but we cannot get into the position of ourselves negotiating which would give the Indonesians just the argument they are looking for to suggest that Malaysia is in some way in a tutelary position, which is not the case. She is a self-governing member of the Commonwealth. We have promised her full support and given her full support and it could well be that that support may have something to do with the recent diminution of activity.

Mr. Mendelson: Nevertheless, would my right hon. Friend recall that it was the stated policy of the Labour Party when in Opposition and also the agreed policy of the Conservative Party when in Government that this problem requires a political solution as soon as possible? Would not he also agree that, while of course we guarantee the security of the Federation of Malaysia, we must not be too restrictive and cautious in suggesting a political initiative in view of the fact that we are largely responsible through our own men for the defence of the Federation of Malaysia?

The Prime Minister: Of course, this requires a political solution and so does every other piece of trouble of a similar character going on in any part of the world. Of course, a political solution is necessary. This is not in the ordinary sense a war. There is no real basis of dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia. This is infiltration into Malaysian territory by units from Indonesia. The whole trouble arises from the fact that Indonesia, as we saw by her conduct at the United Nations, does not recognise the existence of Malaysia and that is one of the difficulties about a political solution which we all want to achieve.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the Prime Minister understand that while we all want a political settlement, as long as he sticks to the principles and the practice which he enunciated just now at the Box, he will have the full support of this side of the House?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 22ND FEBRUARY—Debate on Northern Ireland, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

At seven o'clock, as the House is aware, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed Private Business.

TUESDAY, 23RD FEBRUARY—Debate on Fifth Report from the Estimates Committee of 1963–64, relating to Treasury Control of Establishments, and the relevant Special Report.

Afterwards, Motion on the Prayer Book (Alternative and Other Services) Measure.

Motion on the Civil Defence (Emergency Feeding) (Amendment) Regulations.

WEDNESDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Overseas Development and Service Bill.

Motion on the National Insurance (Mariners) (Amendment) Regulations.

THURSDAY, 25TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill, and of the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Bill [Lords].

Remaining stages of the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Bill, and of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords].

FRIDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 1ST MARCH—The proposed business will be: Supply [7th Allotted Day]: Committee stage of the Civil Estimates and Defence (Central) Estimates Vote on Account, 1965–66, when a debate will arise on Civil Airlines.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I should inform the Leader of the House that we are today tabling a Motion of censure on the Home Secretary over his action

in introducing political considerations into the Home Office practice on the fixing of local authority boundaries. Would he make arrangements for this to be debated?

Mr. Bowden: I note that the Opposition are tabling a Motion of censure on a subject which was debated as recently as yesterday, without a Division. But, of course, in accordance with the usual practice, we shall have discussions through the usual channels to arrange a debate as early as possible.

Mr. Lubbock: Would it be in order to discuss this matter in the debate on Northern Ireland on Monday week?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend recall that it is now a considerable time since the House of Commons has had an opportunity of debating any question of foreign affairs, and that in view of the fact that there are now proceeding in the world a great many matters, some of which are the subject of Motions on the Order Paper, which are causing great anxiety in all parts of the world, can he hold out any early hope that the House will have an opportunity of discussing them?

Mr. Bowden: One of the difficulties is, of course, that we are running into the period of the year when we have six days at least on defence, but I appreciate the importance of a foreign affairs debate, particularly in view of the situation in Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and the United Nations. We will have a look at what can be done in this field.

Sir F. Bennett: In support of the last question, I asked last week whether we could have a debate about Vietnam. Does the Leader of the House think that he could go a little further? This is a serious situation. Despite the fact that no fewer than half of his hon. Friends, back-benchers, have signed a Motion criticising the Government, is he aware that he can count on our support in a debate of this kind?

Mr. Bowden: There are consultations going on at present between the Government and the United States about Vietnam. I think that it would perhaps be unwise to promise a very early debate, but the House can be assured that as soon as there is anything to be said a statement will be made.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: In view of the serious developments which are taking place in the United Nations, and pending the arrangement of a debate as suggested by my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether a statement could be made next week on the crisis at the United Nations?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise that it will be next week, but it will be as soon as it is possible to make that statement.

Mr. Chichester Clark: Is the Leader of the House aware that, while the debate on Monday on Northern Ireland will do nothing to clear up prejudice, it may possibly do something to diminish ignorance?

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say how flexible the timetable for Tuesday's business is, particularly with regard to the first half? Do the Government expect the debate on the Estimates Committee's Report to be completed by seven o'clock or will it be allowed to continue?
Secondly, can my right hon. Friend say when he intends to make a statement on the control of the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Bowden: It is hoped that the debate on the Estimates Committee's Report on the Treasury Control of Establishments will not take the whole day, and to provide an adequate time for a debate on the Motion on the Prayer Book, in which there is a great deal of interest. We shall have to see how this goes. If the first Order takes the whole day, there might be some adjustment later.
On the question of the control of the Palace of Westminster, as soon as it is possible to say anything, a statement will be made, but it will be appreciated that this is not entirely a matter for Parliament.

Mr. Frederic Harris: In view of the numerous references in the Press and on the radio that a reduction in the import surcharge is imminent, could the Leader of the House arrange for the First Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an early announcement of what exactly the Government have in mind, and thus help the business houses, who do not know where they are until the position can be made clear?

Mr. Bowden: Any statement on reduction of the 15 per cent. surcharge will be made at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the recent visit to this country of Mr. Ian Smith and the discussions about the constitutional position in South Africa, will the Leader of the House make it possible to have a debate upon that constitutional question, with a view to clarifying the situation?

Mr. Bowden: I think that my hon. and learned Friend is referring to Rhodesia. He will be aware that the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations are about to visit that country.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the importance to Britain and the Commonwealth of the coming into force of the new Part Four of the G.A.T.T., can the Leader of the House offer some hope of our being able to debate this, or of a debate within which this subject can be discussed?

Mr. Bowden: It could be very adequately discussed on a Supply day. There are a number of Supply days coming up.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question on a matter which is causing me considerable apprehension? Can he say whether the statement which has been made, and which is in the nature of a forecast, by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), who is the owner of the Spectator, I believe—a very interesting periodical—that there will be an election in March, is accurate?

Mr. Bowden: I think that before committing myself I had better have a discussion with the hon. Member referred to.

Sir D. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman kindly said a fortnight ago that he would consult the Minister of Housing about the possibility of a debate on the development of the South-East, following the Minister's important statement. Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to tell us when we may have such a debate?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise anything at the moment.

Mr. Noble: Has the Leader of the House seen the Motion in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends


on the subject of the difficulty of potato growers in selling their potatoes and the Government's refusal to give the Potato Board any facilities for support buying? As the Board has given a tremendous amount of help in evening out the rises and falls in the potato market, and as this affects a great many constituencies, will he bring it to the attention of his right hon. Friend and give us time to debate it?

[That this House views with great concern the present state of the potato market; and deplores the refusal of the Government to authorise support buying by the Potato Marketing Board.]

Mr. Bowden: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has already said that he is keeping the potato market under review. I understand that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Sir Richard Glyn) has given notice that he intends to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Shepherd: As we are still awaiting legislation on monopolies, mergers and restrictive practices, will the Leader of the House tell the House why the Government accord this legislation so low a priority?

Mr. Bowden: I shall be as pleased as the hon. Member when the legislation is brought forward. It will not now be long delayed.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear assurance that any alteration in the import surcharge will first be announced in the House?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. I cannot give that assurance.

Mr. Bessell: In view of the great anxiety felt in the South-West and elsewhere as a result of the announcement of Dr. Beeching's latest proposals, will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on this subject? Is he further aware that a Motion has been tabled today on this matter in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and myself?

Mr. Bowden: I am sorry, but I have not yet seen that Motion. Perhaps I had better see it first.

Mr. Strauss: When may we expect the publication of the White Paper on the

Government and the Arts? May we assume that the House will have an opportunity of debating it?

Mr. Bowden: I hope that the White Paper will be available next week. As for a debate, we had better see how we get on after the White Paper has been laid.

Mr. Heath: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the question of the change in the surcharge is of the utmost importance and that it is appropriate that it should first be announced to the House of Commons? Will he reconsider this matter? When the surcharge was first announced the House was not sitting. The announcement was made in a White Paper. But surely, when the House is sitting, the announcement should be made in the House.

Mr. Bowden: There are difficulties about this, which the right hon. Gentleman himself appreciates, but I take the point that the announcement should be made here first—because, in the general interest of the country, it should be made here first. We will bear that in mind.

Dame Joan Vickers: In view of the fact that for the first time all the Armed Services will come under the Ministry of Defence, when will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to announce how the Estimates will be taken this year?

Mr. Bowden: I should like notice of that question. So far as I know, the Estimates this year will be laid in the same form as previously.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Has the Leader of the House taken note of Motion No. 94 on the school building minor works programme, standing on the Order Paper in my name and the names of a large number of hon. Members? Will he be able to find time for debate on this subject, which is causing the gravest concern to local authorities throughout the country?

[That this House notes the termination by the Government of the scheme whereby local education authorities enjoyed discretion to proceed with improvements to school buildings where the cost of the improvement was less than £2,000; regrets that this action by the Government will mean considerably less being spent on school building improvement in


1965–66 than in 1964–65, and will also result in unnecessary administrative delays in the commencement of important improvement projects; and shares the deep concern already expressed by teachers, local education authorities and chief education officers throughout the country as to the damaging effect that the Government's action will have on the programme to modernise schools.]

Mr. Bowden: I have seen the Motion and the Amendment to it—and they cancel each other out. In fact, minor works have been increased. The Secretary of State for Education and Science has made a statement about it.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider telling us next week when legislation in respect of consumer protection is likely to be introduced by the Government?

Mr. Bowden: Any statement about future legislation is made at this time, on a Thursday, in the normal way.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: That is why I asked.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the dispute with the doctors, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the anxiety which is felt among a large section of the public, particularly those living on small fixed incomes, about what is to happen to them? As there was no reference at all to them yesterday, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Government will be making a statement about that section of the community, who are suffering great anxiety?

Mr. Bowden: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health made a rather full statement in the debate yesterday, and there is a further opportunity of debate on this subject tomorrow.

Mr. Chataway: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the answer which he gave to the request for a debate on Motion No. 94, to do with school building? Does he realise that the answer which he gave is erroneous, because a Written Answer given to me yesterday, from the Secretary of State for Education and Science, admits that this amounts to a reduction of £1 million? In view, of the fact that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not wish to single out either side of the House, but if we discuss questions of fact on the

business question, it becomes much too long an interchange.

Mr. William Clark: If the statement on changes in the surcharge is not to be made in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman say where it may be made?

Mr. Bowden: I have not said that it will not be made in the House. I said that it is desirable to make such statements in the House whenever that is possible, but that there are difficulties. I will go a little further and say that I think that in this case it almost certainly will be made in the House; but there are difficulties.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the fact that the Governor of the Bank of England, for the second time in 10 days, has warned that the 3,000 million dollar loan will not be renewable in a short time unless there are great cuts in expenditure, both centrally and locally, will the right hon. Gentleman give time to debate this very urgent question, since it will affect all social services?

Mr. Bowden: The Governor of the Bank of England and the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) have been warning all Governments for a very long time about this. It would be an ideal subject for a Supply day.

Mr. Urwin: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether it is the Government's intention to provide time to debate the important subject of housing, which has not received as much time as it is entitled to receive?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise any immediate debate on housing.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two of his Ministerial colleagues from that Dispatch Box gave us an assurance that we should have a debate on the arts early in the new year? Is he aware that on the last occasion that he answered a Question from me on this subject he hoped that we might have a debate. Today, he has been even more indefinite. In view of the disquieting rumours about the content of the White Paper on the Government and the Arts, can he give a more firm assurance now?

Mr. Bowden: We must see the White Paper first. I have said that it will be


laid next week. We can then see afterwards what will happen about the debate.

Mr. Webster: Turning to next week's business and to Monday's debate on the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill, will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a free vote on this subject?

Mr. Bowden: It is the usual procedure on Private Business.

The Earl of Dalkeith: In view of what the Leader of the House said about legislation on monopolies, will he assure the House that full consideration will be given to B.E.A.'s future monopoly position? Will he give time in the near future to debate this matter?

Mr. Bowden: That would be quite in order on the business already announced for Monday week.

Mr. William Yates: Although the Leader of the House last week said that he was aware of Motion No. 80, and although no doubt he has paid attention to the Prime Minister's statement that Britain is not in a position to consider entering the European Common Market, is it not time that the House had a two-day debate to discuss questions concerning our relationship with the Commonwealth before we open fresh negotiations with Europe?

Mr. Bowden: We cannot possibly promise any such debate at present.

Mr. Box: May I ask about Questions next week? As today is the first occasion since Christmas on which the First Secretary has had the opportunity of answering Oral Questions, and as he will not come up to answer Oral Questions again for nearly another two months, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he can rearrange Questions next week so that the First Secretary will be available to answer Questions? Or is this deliberate policy by the Government to protect the First Secretary from Oral Questions from my hon. Friends?

Mr. Bowden: The First Secretary needs no protection from anyone. Nevertheless, I am rather concerned about Questions. The system adopted in the last Session, which I approved and which I still think is the right system, whereby we have one Department once a week, which means seven per day instead of eight, ought theoretically to mean that

Departments come up for Questions rather more quickly.
But what has happened, in addition, is that we are taking much more time over supplementary questions and much more time over supplementary answers. We have in being a Select Committee on Procedure, which could probably look at this question. If it does, it will find from its researches, as I have found from mine, that in the last 25 years we have fallen from 80 Questions a day to 33.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the Government, if they make up their mind next week to, for example, purchase TFX aircraft from America, give an assurance that such an announcement will be made to the House rather than being grapevined to Members through the Exchange Telegraph?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question appears to have a hypothetical basis and to be remote from business.

Sir A. V. Harvey: If, unfortunately, the dispute with the doctors should deteriorate, will the Minister of Health and, if necessary, the Prime Minister keep the nation fully informed as to what people should do and what progress is being made?

Mr. Bowden: I would have thought that this is so important a matter that the House and the nation would be advised if the situation should deteriorate.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith), is the Leader of the House aware of the Motion which has been tabled today in my name and in the names of some of my hon. Friends drawing attention to the very grave threat to Scotland's air communications created by the statement made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Aviation? In view of the alarm and concern aroused in Scotland by that statement, will he provide time for an early debate on that Motion?

Mr. Bowden: I read at some length the statement of business for next week and the proposed business for Monday of the following week. I indicated, I hope clearly, that the Opposition Front Bench had chosen this subject for the debate on Monday week.

Orders of the Day — DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Frank Cousins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I understand that the tradition in the House is that a maiden speech should be uncontroversial and, therefore, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to present, as the first major piece of legislation for which my Ministry will be responsible, what I think can be regarded as an uncontroversial Bill.
I do this with some trepidation, because although I have had some experience of speaking elsewhere this is a rather curious—if that is not an offensive word—place in which to speak. There are a number of procedural rules which appear to have to be learned and I hope that there will be a deal of tolerance given to me if I overstep some of them. I say sincerely that I shall attempt to be uncontroversial.
This is a technical issue which we are considering and I may, therefore, be called upon to do a little more quoting than I understand is normally allowed. When I say that this is non-controversial, I would like, first, to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), who last year, on 28th July, announced to the House, in a Written Answer, the views that were held by the Board of Trade on this subject. He stated:
The Government now propose to seek powers to extend the scope and scale of the Corporation's work so that, in addition to the activities which it has undertaken in the past, it will be able to contribute more effectively to industrial innovation and development, particularly development in which industry takes a share of the risk.
That is the essential ingredient of this proposal as well as of the proposal which was intended to come from the last Government when they were considering this issue.
The right hon. Gentleman went on:
For this purpose legislation will be introduced next Session to raise to £25 million in the first instance the Corporation's present limit of borrowing power from the Board of Trade. The legislation will also provide for

a modification and extension of the financial and other conditions under which the Corporation operates so that, in partnership with industry, it will have greater freedom to promote the development and the commercial application of new techniques."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 261.]
That was the need for expansion of development and co-operation with industry. We have been able, in the Bill, to build on that view expressed by the right hon. Member for Bexley. I am sure that, as we go through this, he will recognise many of the proposals which he himself put forward. We intend to make a slightly wider use of the powers of the National Research Development Corporation.
Before dealing with the Bill, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the origin of legislation to date, for it is essential to understand the background in which we make these proposals. When, under the present Prime Minister, legislation was proposed and introduced in 1948, and given effect to in 1949, this was the first legislative recognition of the need to deal with the problem of the development gap.
It was accepted then, and subsequent history has only served to confirm, that while British fundamental and applied research was as good as anywhere else in the world—and there is no argument about that—sometimes there were, no doubt for sound reasons, some serious delays and failures in the development and adoption by industry of the results of research.
At that time the Government research stations, civilian and defence, the universities and other research institutions were making many discoveries and inventions of fundamental importance. There had been, during the previous few years, a number of sound and substantial inventions coming forward, produced in British laboratories, but either because they had simply been published or because patent exploitation had not been followed they had eventually been developed abroad and the advantages and results had accrued to other countries.
There was, therefore, a clear requirement for an organisation equipped to undertake the task of protecting these inventions by patents and of subsequently exploiting them. The first purpose for which the Corporation was set up was, therefore, to enable it to


take over and patent such inventions and then exploit them. But in too many cases active patent exploitation was not enough and it was subsequently discovered that in some instances—probably because industry had too many other things to do with its resources—industry was not always sufficiently prepared to take the risk of speculative development. Industry was often not willing to take an interest in an invention unless sufficient development had been done to demonstrate its technical soundness and to enable the firm to form a closer estimate of its commercial value.
The second purpose of the Corporation was to invest a proportion of its original £5 million capital in the development of inventions to the stage at which they could be successfully licensed to industry. The Corporation was set up in 1949 with its initial capital of £5 million, which could be advanced during its first five years. As I will demonstrate later, that was on a basis of intending that it should make its own way with that £5 million. In 1954, it was found necessary to extend the period of the advances to 10 years; and in 1958 the amount of the capital was increased to £10 million and the period increased to 20 years.
By the time of the 1954 Act, it had been realised that research, either to assist in the development or exploitation of an invention or, in some cases, because it might be expected to lead to an invention, was a necessary part of the Corporation's rôle. But last year it became clear that further action was required, and I have already said that the right hon. Member for Bexley himself expressed this view publicly.
The history and purpose of the N.R.D.C. is something which we should also consider before we come to the question of the legislation and what we are intending to do. There are, broadly, three heads under which the Corporation operates. The idea is, first, the patenting and licensing to industry of inventions which are already capable of practical application; secondly, assisting the development of inventions; and, thirdly, assisting research likely to lead to new or developed inventions.
Exploitation has continued with good success. It stayed at about a constant

level for an initial period of growth, which had to be expected, but it now brings back in royalties about twice what is spent on this part of the Corporation's activities, that is, patenting and licensing are bringing in about twice as much as is invested.
For some time past, the second part, the development side, of the work of the Corporation has been assuming greater importance and it is on this side that we hope to get a major expansion in the future. The third function, research, has not up to now resulted in as much return as exploitation, or as much expenditure as development, but it has, nevertheless, covered a number of important projects.
It is now clear that the time before one can expect a return on research and development expenditure is longer than was originally envisaged. This was becoming increasingly obvious. It was first assumed that everything would be done successfully and bring in a return, but that proved not to be so. We estimate that the average period is about eight years. If this is so, the Corporation has had to carry its investments, against which interest was chargeable, for a substantial period of time.
It will be accepted that this part of the Corporation's work is essentially speculative, particularly in the sense that the Corporation is expected to take risks which industry is not prepared to face, understandably so. This is inherent in the nature of the Corporation's activities and it is, therefore, inevitable that losses will from time to time be incurred on the projects it supports. This activity has had to be financed not by equity capital, as it would have been in ordinary private business, but by loan money from the Government.
From the first, it was written in the Act that the Corporation was expected, taking one year with another, to balance its revenue account. This provision, which we intend to maintain—and I had better make that clear—has always been regarded as of very great importance by the Corporation itself. I had the pleasure of talking to the managing director before introducing the Bill, and I was told that the Corporation regarded it as essential that even in the first examination we should retain that provision, because the Corporation felt that it gave it a bargaining position when talking to industry. It


allowed the Corporation to exercise its own independent judgment on any case which came before it.
However, for the reasons I have just set out, the Corporation has not so far been able to achieve this objective, and, very broadly speaking, its income from all sources has not amounted to more than hale its outgoings on current account, while it has accumulated a considerable liability for interest on the Government advances.
Nevertheless, as the House knows, the Corporation has a very reasonable record of success. It has, during its lifetime, received about £2 million in royalty revenue, which represents only a fraction of its value to industry itself. The value to industry and our economic affairs has sometimes been immeasurably greater. Out of the £6 million which has been invested in development, about £1·4 million has already been recovered. Much of the remainder represents development projects still in the pipeline and which we can expect to produce revenue for the Corporation.
This investment has been broadly based. The subjects which have been under review by the N.R.D.C. in medical supplies have been of great value to the medical profession—and I do not mean only the latest of the investments. There have also been electronics and the computer industry, a development which certainly helped the computer industry in its early days. The industry would have been much slower in making its first progress without this work. The Corporation did a great deal of work in printed circuits, which are themselves an essential part of electronic assemblies. A different kind of work, but nevertheless an effective development, was the potato harvester and another was research into automatic cardroom processing in the cotton industry, of great value in the assistance of cotton developments.
The two best known at the moment are the Dracone flexible liquid-carrying barge and the Hovercraft, which are now at about the stage, after an extended period of development and investment, where they are likely to bring returns. During the time that the Corporation has been in existence it has also developed a considerable expertise in the handling of patents and development projects.
I commend to the House and to anyone interested in the Corporation its six-monthly bulletin which, if nothing else, shows the very wide range of activities with which the Corporation has become associated. The developments in the electrical engineering and electronics side and in scientific instruments show the great value of the organisation to British industry in general.
Now for the future and the proposals for reshaping the Corporation. Our wish is that it should play an even more important and constructive rôle. The Government are convinced that, much as has already been done, at the moment the Corporation is still on the edge of the possibilities of development. As the House knows, the main purpose of the creation of the Ministry of Technology is to speed up the industrial application of our scientific "know-how" which very properly comes within the range of activities in which we are involved. In the Ministry we have already started a series of studies in depth of various sectors of industry and we shall press ahead with this programme and expand it. The net result of this is likely to be a series of proposals for applied research and development to meet particular needs of industry.
In addition, we are making a fresh examination of the possibilities of developing for industrial purposes the results of research work undertaken in Government research establishments and atomic energy establishments. I hope that this will lead to the wider use by industry of new ideas and technological processes. The House will recall, in this connection, that in the Science and Technology Bill we are seeking to enable the Atomic Energy Authority to make use of its great resources and skills over a wider field. It has very great resources and it is a pity if they are not more widely used to the benefit of British industry.
The N.R.D.C. can provide a most valuable service in this examination with its wide expertise in the exploitation of inventions. I am sure, therefore, that the House will be as glad as I am that Mr. Duckworth, the Managing Director of N.R.D.C., has accepted my invitation to a position on the Atomic Energy Authority.
I have said publicly before, and I now repeat, that we regard co-operation between these two bodies as a very useful development, and that Mr. Duckworth has now joined them is to the advantage of both bodies. The examination which we are having should lead to a programme of development work which will help us to give the sort of technological lift which industry needs, and the Corporation will play a major part in the drawing up of this programme.
As I have said, we expect that there will be a substantial expansion in the type of risk and profit-sharing development projects in which the Corporation has been engaged in the last year or two. These are projects brought to the Corporation by particular industrial firms, often for work which the firms themselves have commenced, but whose completion they are unable to finance. The Corporation is then able to put in the necessary finance as an investment which is returned with interest and a payment for risk if the project succeeds.
I turn now to the legislative proposals to show how they fit into this programme of action. Clause 1 of the Bill increases the capital at the disposal of the Corporation from £10 million to £25 million. The limit on the time of its use, after having been raised in earlier provisions from five to ten and then to 20 years, will be removed altogether so that we can make advances as required over such period of time as is desirable.
It seems to us that this amount of money is a quite reasonable increase in the capital resources of the Corporation when we consider how its activities and investments have been rising in the last two years, particularly following its increased support of joint-venture projects, to which I have just referred. It may be that in a few years this sum will turn out to be inadequate, but I would prefer, and I am sure that the Corporation would also prefer, to wait to see how things go. I hope that the Opposition will now think, as they did when they were the Government, that it would be wise to deal with this in this way, and then consider the matter in the light of developments.
Clause 1 also makes certain alterations in the accounting and reporting of the Corporation's activities, consequent on

our decision to transfer the source of its advances from the Consolidated Fund to the Departmental Vote. In addition, we propose to take account of the distinctive nature of the Corporation's work, which I have already described, by amending the financial conditions under which it operates in such a way as to give it a chance within a reasonable period of time of being able to fulfil the break-even Clause in the 1948 Act.
We shall do this in two ways. We shall do it, first, by a provision in Clause 2 that if the Corporation has to write off, wholly or partly, a development project that it considers is unlikely to produce a return, it may ask the Minister for a direction that it will no longer be liable to repay a corresponding sum from the advances that have been made to it. It will, by this means, be saved future charges for interest on these advances.
If I may, as it were, interrupt myself at this point, it seems to me to be rather an irrational idea to recognise that a project is terminated but to continue to charge the organisation that is working for the country and industry interest on advances for the project, so expecting the Corporation to accept a continued liability in regard to something that it has already been determined is not to go on. That seems to be quite irrational when we are, at the same time, talking of advancing further sums of money.
I therefore hope that the Opposition, which had all these factors in front of them at the time, will agree that what is suggested is a sensible step to take. We also feel that it is quite logical to do this when we recognise that this is a body set up to take unusual risks, but is, nevertheless, required, if possible, to balance its accounts.
Clause 2 also provides that any amount so written off shall still count against the £25 million limit of advances, and that, if any written-off asset subsequently recovers in value, the Minister may revive it and the liability for the corresponding advance. Under subsection (10) of this Clause, the Corporation may ask for this writing-off procedure to be applied to the losses it has incurred already and which represent a heavy burden on its balance-sheet. All these actions must be recorded in the annual reports which


the Minister has to lay before Parliament.
The second way in which we propose to alter the financial conditions under which the Corporation operates is dealt with in Clause 3. This will enable us to relieve the Corporation of the burden of interest for the first eight years of any advance, corresponding to the average maturity period of a development project. This will be done by making corresponding grants from the Vote of my Department. We propose that the Clause can be retrospective in action, so that the Minister may apply it to the appropriate share of the past interest due, which stands in the Corporation's balance-sheet.
I now turn to Clause 4, which extends the scope of the Corporation's activities further than was envisaged in the proposals announced by the previous Administration. Its purpose is to enable Government Departments—with the exception of the Post Office, which already has the power to do so—to ask the Corporation to undertake projects at the expense of their own Votes, and to pay the Corporation a management fee for doing this. We attach considerable importance to this Clause. Hon. Members will recognise that it is a replacement of Section 5 of the 1948 Act, which simply allowed a Department to put projects in front of the Corporation, and indicated that it might reimburse the Corporation for losses incurred. We do not think that it is sufficiently attractive if Departments merely put their ideas in front of the Corporation without expecting them to accept the position of paying it a management fee for doing work on their behalf.
As the House knows, many Government Departments, apart from those with direct responsibilities for research and development financed from their own Votes, have a close relationship with certain industries—whether it be as bulk purchasers, as sponsors, or in other ways—and have a strong interest in seeing that those industries are efficient, competitive, and alive to technological change. We believe that Government Departments have a responsibility to assist and stimulate industry to achieve this state; and that they can use their relationship positively and fruitfully by initiating and supporting advanced development projects.

In the majority of cases, the N.R.D.C., with its experience, should be the preferred instrument for the negotiation and management of such development projects.
I should like now to explain two features of Clause 4 which in some ways may appear to be contradictory. On the one hand, the Clause gives the enabling power to the Departments which I have just described; on the other, it also provides that the Minister of Technology must approve the arrangements. At the same time, it gives the Corporation the option to decline to take on projects proposed to it by Government Departments. I think that this provision will meet one or two criticisms that might have been made that without the insertion of these words we were taking away some autonomy from the Corporation.
We feel that the Minister of Technology, as the Minister answerable for the Corporation, must keep a general oversight of its operations and prevent it from being overloaded. That is why we say that he must approve the proposal. The Corporation must, however, have the right to decline to carry out a project, partly because there might be incompatibility between a new project and the obligations that the Corporation had itself accepted under an earlier arrangement, and partly because the fact that the Corporation was obliged to negotiate a certain contract would weaken its negotiating position.
I hope that it will be sufficient if I deal very briefly with Clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 tells the Corporation, quite simply, that it may make a profit. That it should be able to do so is right, having regard to the commercial nature of its operations. But it is equally right, in our view, that the Minister should have a say in the disposal of such profits. When we bear in mind the extent to which this Bill proposes to relieve the Corporation of certain financial burdens, we feel that we have the right to be involved in the disbursement of any profits there may be, including reimbursement and repayment to the Treasury if the opportunity should arise.
Clause 6 enables the Minister to increase the membership of the Corporation by two. As hon. Members interested will know, the present membership is


10, and we propose to increase it to 12 because we propose to extend the Corporation's activities, and it is, therefore, necessary to provide the right spread of expertise in industry and commerce and the various technological and scientific disciplines in which the Corporation operates.
To sum up, the main provisions of the Bill are the increase in the capital available to the N.R.D.C.; the power to write off the debt corresponding to its ascertained losses; to counterbalance by grant the burden of its interest for a period and, finally, the power to use the Corporation as an instrument for a programme of civil development contracts—

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my asking a question that has no political content. Clause 4 refers to "any Government department". That appears to mean the Defence Departments, and I wondered, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of civil development contracts, whether he was excluding the Defence Departments. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to answer that now, perhaps an answer could be given later in the debate.

Mr. Cousins: That will be answered by my hon. Friend when he replies to the debate. We have considered that point, too, and have specifically said "any Government department", and have excluded one Department because it already has provision direct.
It is our aim that this should give the Corporation the financial structure and the opportunity to expand its activities, both on its own account and as an agent for the Government. These are objectives on which I think we all agree, and I hope that the Bill will commend itself to both sides of the House and that both sides will recognise that it is intended to make a significant contribution to greater technological progress and industrial efficiency.
I should like to thank the House for the courtesy it has shown me. I appreciate that right hon. and hon. Members have listened very attentively to what in some respects must have been rather dry technical comment on the Bill. There will no doubt be other occasions when

hon. Members will not listen as quietly. My experience in the House up to now hardly led me to believe that they could do it on this occasion.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): It is a peculiar pleasure that I should be signing off, as it were, my own responsibility from this side of the House for scientific matters, for the time being at least, by welcoming the right hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) to the House on the occasion of his maiden speech.
We on this side of the House have long wanted to see the right hon. Gentleman here. This is not because we agree with everything that he says, or even because we have revised our opinion that there ought not to be such a post as Minister of Technology. But we think that the House is the place for people of controversial opinions who wish to influence their fellow countrymen, and we are delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman come here and deliver a maiden speech with such success.
The right hon. Gentleman, in common with very few other Members, has had the distinction of making his first speech from the Dispatch Box. He shared that distinction with my father. Some people might think that it was an advantage. My father did not. I think that it probably is an advantage. The Dispatch Box is a very convenient place to speak from. If nothing else, it manages to conceal one's nether limbs from one's fellow Members. On the occasion of my maiden speech I seem to remember that my own seemed to be at least three yards long below the waist. The right hon. Gentleman has at any rate been lucky in the location from which he has made his maiden speech. I know that it is customary to say it, but in this case I say sincerely that we hope to hear the right hon. Gentleman often, and we also hope to see him sampling the Opposition benches for a change before long.
I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courteous way in which he acknowledged the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), for I think almost every item of policy contained in the Bill. Indeed, if I may say so without


presumption or flattery, many of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues who have not been making maiden speeches would do well to take a leaf out of the right hon. Gentleman's book. I do not know what hon. Members opposite may think, but I believe that the whole House is getting a little weary of hon. Members opposite on every possible occasion drawing the greatest possible contrast between the two sides of the House on matters of policy when, in fact, there is nothing objective to differentiate them from one another. The right hon. Gentleman did quite right to emphasise this side of the matter.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was also quite right to try to describe the policy of the Bill against the record of history. I will go in a few moments back to the same departure point as the right hon. Gentleman originally took. The policy of the Bill, which we on this side endorse. must be seen in relation to the organisation set up by this Government rather than the organisation set up by the previous Government.
I wish, first, to make one inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman, or of the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who is to reply, about the organisational side of the aspect as affected by the new position. All these organisational questions stem to some extent from the Trend Report, a Report which was gravely underestimated by hon. Members opposite when it was produced some two years ago but which they have largely now put into effect. The Trend Report recommended a single Industrial Research and Development Authority which was to incorporate, on the one side what I may call for convenience the industrial portion of D.S.I.R., and, on the other side, the N R.D.C., with which the Bill is itself concerned.
In the events which happened, this did not commend itself to the last Government. This single Corporation under the Department of Education and Science, which it then was, incorporating both the N.R.D.C. and part of D.S.I.R., would have involved the divorce of the N.R.D.C. from the Board of Trade, under which it then was. For various reasons, it became plain to us that the Corporation itself would not have welcomed the transfer, because it would have put an undue emphasis, so it considered, upon the

scientific side of its work and would to some extent have interfered, as it thought, with its freedom of action. So we decided to keep the two bodies separate, each under its separate Minister.
Now the Government, for reasons be they good or bad—we discussed this at considerable length before the right hon. Gentleman arrived—have decided to put them both under the Minister of Technology. One half—the D.S.I.R. half—they have decided to give to the Minister of Technology to administer himself, instead of administering it, as before, by means of a corporation or research council. I wonder why, when for reasons which seemed good to them they decided to put both bodies under one Minister, they did not at the same time revert to the original suggestion of Trend and amalgamate the two sides in a single Corporation, which would have had the advantage of very much greater size and turnover than either of the two halves; it could have been put under an industrial chairman of great experience; also, I should have thought, it would have avoided the kind of demarcation dispute that could conceivably arise.
Hon. Members who have seen the latest Report, for instance, of the Corporation will recognise at least 25 projects which are within the terms of reference of the liaison committee between the two halves—and it would have therefore enabled the whole territory of development to have been dealt with under a single organisation. Although the importance of these matters of organisation can be exaggerated, it had occurred to me that, on the assumptions which the Government made—that is, that both are to be under the Minister of Technology—they might have got an added advantage from amalgamating the two bodies.
The right hon. Gentleman took us back to the formation of the Corporation in the time of the last Labour Government. Of course, he was perfectly right to do so. But I thought that in so doing he to some extent underestimated the novel character of the Measure he now proposes. I do not think it is too much to say that the N.R.D.C. was originally very much less concerned with the development gap than it now is and even less concerned with it than it will be after the Bill is passed.
The N.R.D.C. had originally two main objectives. The first was the belief, which I think proved on the whole erroneous, that there were a number of individual inventions circulating around industry which industry was deliberately repressing because it was thought that they would interfere with established processes. I think that that has proved on the whole a mistake. Industry, on the whole, is capable of handling inventions by individual inventors which are capable of immediate exploitation. No doubt there are exceptions and there are occasions when the Government can step in, and no doubt it is valuable to have an alternative court of appeal to which the individual inventor can turn. But on the whole, that side of the work has not developed on the lines or to the extent expected.
Secondly, and this developed beyond the expectations of the original progenitors of the Bill, the Corporation is an agency for the exploitation of Government inventions. Quite clearly, such an agency is an absolute necessity in the modern world. Government expenditure on civil research and development has developed in the past thirteen years from about £30 million to about £180 million, or it very will soon be £180 million by the normal process of growth. It was £170 million by the time I left office.
It is quite clear that, with Government laboratories operating on a scale like that, a very large number of exploitable inventions turn up and it is vital that they should be properly protected by patents and when protected should be properly exploited, which in the ordinary course means a proper relationship with industry in all its forms. The Corporation has performed a vital task in that respect, but there has turned out in recent years both in the D.S.I.R. and in the N.R.B.C. a new conception of the rôle which Government can play in the development of technology, and I think that it is more in that field than in the original two that the Bill will prove to be valuable. It is the rôle referred to in the recent Report of the Corporation, and I think in the statement made by my right hon. Friend last July, as the commercial application of new techniques.
I know that it is fashionable either to praise or to blame Government activity

according to which side of the House one happens to be speaking from, but the fact is that both Government activity and private activity in this field have their limitations and have their advantages and to some extent there has been a gap between the two. An invention may not always yield its full commercial benefit to the original developer. It may develop a new technique throughout industry. Electronic control processes in machine-tool manufacture are an example. Desalination of water has not yet proved successful on a commercial basis, except in rather unusual parts of the world, but that is another case where the original inventor or developer might not reap the full reward of his labours and, therefore, might well be deterred from investing money in the process.
Again, the period of time which might elapse between the inauguration of the process in research and development and its successful commercial exploitation, especially in large enterprises, is so long that ordinary commercial capital feels quite properly that it could be more profitably employed elsewhere. Equally, there might be cases where Government Departments might want an invention and feel the same need for it as the user of any other commercial process and might feel it right to put up capital in conjunction with commercial manufacturers to reach manufacture at an earlier stage than would otherwise be the case.
There is, therefore, a creative role for the Government to play in this field and one which need not necessarily offend the doctrinal purists on both sides. It was for this reason that my right hon. Friend made his statement and it is in order to achieve this purpose that the right hon. Gentleman has produced the Bill. There are one or two limitations about this, which I see the Government have accepted by implication—because of the relatively small sums of money involved in the Bill. The commercial development contract, which is one of the conceptions underlying the Bill, is not as easy in the field of civil science—as people think—or as it is in the field of defence. In defence, the Government is the customer and a Government Department is usually responsible for procurement. The very large development contracts, when they come—and I hope that they will, although on the Government's present economic policy


I do not know how we shall pay for them—again come under this procedure.
The Concord is nothing but a very large development contract ending in a commercial aircraft. If a nuclear propelled ship comes, that, again, will be a very large development contract ending, at any rate, in a commercially exploitable ship, although I would not expect it to be commercially profitable in the first instance. The desalinisation of water would be another. The communications satellite which may be one of the great technological developments of the next 25 years, should be made the subject of a development contract.
None of these, with the exception of the desalinisation of water is likely to come under the procedure envisaged by the Bill. This is because the very largest conceptions will have to be dealt with by the procurement Departments. This is one of the difficulties with which the Minister will have to struggle in dealing with his colleagues, because he has been given the sponsorship, as it is called in Government jargon, of the electronics industry, the computer industry and though I am not sure, of even the aircraft industry, the main influence on which, exerted by Government, is exerted by those whom I am tempted in these circumstances to call the right hon Gentleman's Ugly Sisters. At any rate, they have done their best to kill Cinderella, unless it is that the right hon. Gentleman fancies himself as the Fairy Godmother or the handsome Prince or the less assuming Buttons. However, these matters are in the future.
In the meantime, on behalf of the Opposition, I wish the Bill well and I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the course of the career upon which he has so successfully launched himself. I had the privilege, as I reminded the House in the debate on the Address, of appointing the right hon. Gentleman to the D.S.I.R. I can tell him that I received a considerable rebuke for having so done. The appointment was described in the most authoritative quarter as most unfortunate. However, I remained impenitent and I am still more impenitent after this afternoon's proceedings.
The right hon. Gentleman is what is called, I believe, a controversial figure. There are other controversial figures in

the House. I have always taken the view that those who happen to be controversial figures are still capable of objective intellectual activity and of doing a useful job. The right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated the truth of that observation.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd (Sutton: I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in congratulating the Minister on his maiden speech. It is both a pleasure and duty to do so. I think that he will have surprised the country, because most people, including his supporters and, indeed, our supporters, would never have expected, if they had been told that it was possible, that the right hon. Gentleman would succeed in making a non-controversial speech in the House of Commons. I congratulate him very much on it.
Also, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, the Minister made very handsome acknowledgment of the preparatory work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) on the Bill. I reciprocate, if I may, and acknowledge that the idea of the Bill was originally that of the previous Socialist Government. I understand that it was Sir Stafford Cripp's idea in the first place.
I add only that we did well to take the Act, as it became, and to make the best of it, and I think that it would be true to say that the contribution of the Conservative Government was very largely in doing what, perhaps, they could do better than the party opposite, that is, bring in the support of business. One of the most notable developments of the past few years in the work of the N.R.D.C. has been the way in which it has been able to secure the service of very able and experienced business men and has been able, therefore, the better to get good co-operation with private industry. This is an important part of its work. One may say, therefore, that both major parties have contributed to the present position of this important experiment.
I like very much, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does, too, the fact that the Corporation goes out of its way in a most practical and businesslike fashion to secure the co-operation of private industry in its projects. I notice


with particular interest that as much as 30 per cent. of its projects now are carried on in partnership with private industry. This is most important. I do not want to be controversial, but the right hon. Gentleman may, in a benevolent moment, be inclined to agree that, when a company has its money in a project, it will put its best foot forward and will do the job that the N.R.D.C. wants it to do with real enthusiasm.
I was interested in the examples which the Minister gave of the Corporation's work. I shall follow him in that by referring to two other aspects of its activities. One which he did not mention, but which I regard as of considerable interest, is the development of the fuel cell. This is a method of generating electricity direct from electronic chemical reaction without the intervention of heat, turbines or other engines of the conventional sort.
For 30 years, a British inventor, Mr. Francis Bacon, has been working on this project. I know about it because, as Minister of Fuel and Power in the early 1950s, I had the project before me and I was able to give a small grant to allow the work on the fuel cell to carry on. I think that the Admiralty did as well. I do not claim that this was anything more than a holding operation which enabled the work to continue, but then Lord Halsbury and the N.R.D.C. came in, and I congratulate them very much on what they have done.
They have brought in an excellent consortium of private interests, including, I think, British Ropes, an important and very enterprising concern, Guest, Keen and Nettlefold and, perhaps, one or two others whose names escape me for the moment. The project is now known as Energy Conversion.
This is typical of the sort of thing that the N.R.D.C. ought to be doing because it is rafter difficult in this country, where the resources of companies are not so vast as they are in America, for instance, to expect a company to spend much money on a project when practical realisation of it seems very far in the future.
As sometimes happens in research—it is most delightful when it does—there was in this case a most dramatic move. The Americans suddenly realised that, for the Atlas space project to the moon, the fuel cell was just the right device

to provide power. Although the ordinary battery, if it goes just for a day or two, probably has the advantage, when one is planning for a 17-day journey to the moon and one needs to provide power for the capsule during all that time, the fuel cell wins hands down. It is, perhaps, a sobering reflection for us, although we can have our pride in it, that, while we might have been spending £100,000 a year on the project in Britain—I do not know the exact figure—the Americans came in and immediately put 28 million dollars into it.
The development is now tremendous. The N.R.D.C. has royalties on the research, although, of course, not on the engineering technology involved, another rather sobering thought for us. Nevertheless, we can take real pride in the fact that the capsule for the American space project to the moon will be powered by the British Bacon fuel cell.
I know that the work is still at a difficult stage and is now more concentrated on seeing whether it is possible to produce electricity by this reaction using cheaper fuels than pure hydrogen and oxygen, for example, using ordinary commercial hydrocarbons, and so on, but I should like to know from the Minister whether, in addition to the straightforward production of electricity, the storage possibilities are being considered.
In a sense, it is the continuity of power production, the storage of energy in that way, which has been the principle leading the Americans to use the fuel cell for their space capsule. I could not help but be interested to read in the New Scientist, at the weekend, some words of Sir Thomas Merton, a distinguished Oxford scientist. He said, quite rightly, that in war time, once a precise requirement was laid down, it was amazing how someone or other came along and was, in the end, able to fulfil it.
I remember from my own experience, when Sir Winston Churchill asked me to disperse the fog on airfields and the Ministry of Aircraft Production said that it was impossible, I decided to get close to the customer and got from the Pathfinder Force a precise limited requirement of just 100 ft. above the runway which it said would be sufficient for it. It was that limited and precise requirement which really gave the boost to the


research workers and enabled us to succeed. Of course, after that, we did much more than was required, but the original precise and limited requirement was most useful.
Reverting to the storage of energy and the fuel cell, I wonder whether there is here a most interesting possibility in the development of electric vehicles for public transport in the centres of our cities, to reduce noise and the emission of fumes. I only put it to the right hon. Gentleman for consideration, but I wonder whether it would be worthwhile someone laying down a precise and limited requirement to stimulate the research worker.
I am very interested in the medical work of the Corporation, and I am glad that it has close relations with the Medical Research Council. I stress this particularly because I am in fairly close touch with medical research in the United States, where, of course, it proceeds upon an enormous basis, with, I believe, 50 million dollars a year being spent on cancer research, and so on.
I know from some of their research workers that they have found that it is now very important to bring in the "ironmongery and hardware" side, as they call it, although I do not like to use that phrase. They need other scientists, technologists, engineers and business people in medical research because now so many things are being developed, such as heart-lung machines and artificial kidneys. There is certainly great opportunity and need for close co-operation between medical researchers and people who contribute the practical technological side. I am glad that the N.R.D.C. is doing this in cooperation with the Medical Research Council.
Finally, there is great opportunity for the N.R.D.C. to co-operate with the colleges of advanced technology now that they have become technological universities. We have the great institutions of Glasgow and Manchester and Imperial College, London. We now have 13 technological universities. I know that the new University of Aston in Birmingham is extremely keen on developing research with industry.
Perhaps it will be possible for the N.R.D.C. to co-operate fruitfully with the technological universities, particularly

with the new research institutes and associations which may well grow up in them and which may result in great mutual benefit because so many of them are in great provincial industrial centres and in close contact with local industry. I know that the relationship already existing betwen industry in Birmingham and the Midlands and the new University of Aston is extremely warm and very close and is getting better all the time.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for sympathetically listening to these points. I wish him and the N.R.D.C. the very best of success in the interest of the country.

4.52 p.m.

Sir John Maitland: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Technology is indeed fortunate in being able to introduce a debate in which everyone in the House is interested. The idea of inventions and inventors excites us from childhood. It represents new processes and machines and is in keeping with the spirit we want in this country. I am particularly interested in the subject because, for a large part of my active technological life, I was doing some of the things that are discussed in the N.R.D.C. paper.
I am a tremendous admirer of the work of the N.R.D.C. The great sweep of that work is fascinating and, I must say, a little amusing. It deals, among other things, with the common cold, acquatic mowers, fish finders—something I have often wanted—and the detection of foreign bodies
… (anything from bottle caps, to broken glass, pins and mice) in milk bottles at the stage between washing and filling.
The N.R.D.C.'s Report goes on:
At the moment the inspection is done by girls sitting at the conveyor line, and fatigue rapidly produces inefficiency.
I must say that I could hardly sleep last night thinking about these poor girls on a conveyor line looking for mice in milk bottles.
While the work of the N.R.D.C. is absolutely essential to the national economy and to technology, there are gaps in it. I think that sometimes those who are not involved with technological matters do not appreciate that invention is very often a day-to-day matter for technologists, rather like the case of the


Duke of Wellington who said that when something went wrong in a battle he knotted a rope and went on again. A technologist in his work is always finding things he has to put right and in doing so he often develops a most useful invention.
The trouble, of course, is that it is an invention for a particular service and does not get the cross-fertilisation which it might get and which might make it of great use to other parts of industry. I know that when one talks about cross-fertilisation of inventions the idea sounds very well but it is extremely difficult to carry out.
There is in my belief a gap in the work carried out by the N.R.D.C. and this is in the case of the individual, private inventor, of the small man who invents something he does not know quite how to exploit. It is extraordinarily difficult to know how best one can use an invention. I had an interesting example recently in which a man invented a machine to produce a certain reaction. It was found to be quite useless for the purpose, but proved to be the ideal answer for almost exactly the opposite purpose for which it was designed. That sort of thing happens all the time.
I want to draw the attention of the Minister and the House to the Institute of Patentees and Inventors, which has been in existence for a very long time. It is unsupported by public money. It relies on the subscriptions of its members. It has been doing excellent work dealing very largely with the smaller man. It handles a large number of cases a year and has managed to give to industry some extremely useful inventions.
I do not want to go into detail about it now, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have already written to him and I am hoping to bring the leaders of this organisation to see him. Perhaps then we shall be able to discuss these points in detail. I want to say at once that I have absolutely no financial interest in the organisation. My only interest is my belief that it is doing a first-class job.
One would think that, in the natural sequence of events, the N.R.D.C. would be able to help these small people. But this is work which the N.R.D.C. has not

the statutory right to carry out. It is mainly a body for dealing with Government Departments and ideas of national importance and has no power to help other people such as the Institute to carry out duties for which it has no statutory responsibility.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would get round somewhat similar difficulties by making a direction, and it is on lines such as that that I shall be approaching him and asking him to consider most carefully the great national service which I believe this body has been doing in the past, and could well do even better in the future with a little additional help.
I do not want an answer from the right hon. Gentleman today, but hope to have the opportunity to discuss these points in detail with him at a later date.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I join my hon. and right hon. Friends in congratulating the Minister on his maiden speech. In anticipation of this debate, and in view of its subject matter, I could not help being reminded of a well-known character in "Alice Through the Looking Glass", the White Knight—everything being all his own invention. The right hon. Gentleman has been the first to admit that the Bill was not his own invention, and I am sure that it was much appreciated that he recognised that. Perhaps instead of a mounted white knight it would be a more accurate allusion to say that he is a red knight dusted with "Snow".
I am very glad that the Bill has been introduced, because I think that the one great flaw in the Trend Report, on which the Bill is based, was that it visualised the separation of the industrial side of the D.S.I.R., which was renamed the Industrial Research Development Authority, from the N.R.D.C. It always seemed to me that Mr. Duckworth's fulminations when that Report was published were fully justified. I doubt whether any public body has been more ably or brilliantly served than the N.R.D.C. has been served by Mr. Duckworth. I think that all hon. Members who have had the opportunity of discussing matters with him have been deeply impressed not only by his ability, but by his tremendous enthusiasm.
This is an immensely important feature of the promotion of science and technology in this country. The right hon. Gentleman would probably agree from his industrial experience, let alone from his short Government experience, that the research associations of industry vary tremendously in the impact which they make on the industries concerned. If the production engineering research associations' methods were followed by some of the others, they would perhaps have greater success. Enthusiasm is all-important, and the best tribute which one cart pay to the N.R.D.C.'s enthusiasm is the results which it has achieved. I am sure that as long as that spirit prevails all will be well.
For a moment I had my doubts about whether the Minister had quite the right idea when I heard what he said about Clause 5. I think that he said that when the N.R.D.C. has made a profit he will reserve the right to say what should be done with it, and that he will then do something very dangerous indeed—consult the Treasury, or that the Treasury will make him toe the line. I must warn him, if he does not know it already, that he must be very careful about that.
There is an important aspect which arises a little out of what was originally put in the Gibb-Zuckerman Report on the Management and Control of Research and Development, which was published some years ago. The point which emerges clearly from that Report and which has been re-emphasised by what has happened since its publication is that industry makes sure that the people who are most qualified see research and development projects through from beginning to end. The moment we get in the field of government—and this is particularly relevant to defence matters and the Service Departments—one is apt to have people's turn for promotion arising half-way through and off they go somewhere else. A new man must then be brought in and put in the picture. This progressing of research and development can best be achieved if the people who are originally selected as capable of starting it can see it through. I hope that the Minister will ensure that that practice prevails.
The record of the N.R.D.C. in this respect is good, but it is not anything like as good in defence matters. I realise that, as the Gibb-Zuckerman Report pointed out, quite a lot of the scientific

fall-out from defence research projects is turned over to the N.R.D.C., or Power Jets (R & D) Ltd., if it has a civil application. I am sure that this process must go on. Even if less is being done in relation to the whole in defence matters—and the proportions were markedly changed in the lieftime of the last Government, and changed correctly, I think—it will still be of the greatest importance from a civil point of view. N.R.D.C. is the obvious body to deal with this matter.
May I refer to the conception with which we are dealing. I should have preferred—and I say this frankly to the Minister, despite the welcome which I have given to his Bill—to have seen I.R.D.A. and N.R.D.C. under the Board of Trade. However, I would agree absolutely that the Ministry which has taken the responsibility which would have been I.R.D.A.'s should be the one to which the N.R.D.C. should report. I make no adverse comment about that. I believe that the Minister would be wise to accept the old Haldane conception of research and development—in other words, the best people to decide what research should be carried out are scientists and that the less the politicians come into the matter the better.
We all know that the Minister was a very outspoken man in other capacities, and I hope that he will bear in mind the essential need to avoid as far as possible bringing party politics into science. Obviously, there are some decisions which must be taken politically. Whether something is in context with what is in the interests of the United Kingdom is essentially a political decision in the first instance and, perhaps, in the last instance. But while a project is proceeding I hope that political influence will be kept to the minimum.
I was a little surprised that the Minister did not tell us why it was proposed by the Bill to increase the size of the N.R.D.C. by two, I think. It is important that we should know who it is visualised will come on to this body. I suppose that we all have our ideas. My feeling is that there might be a defence representative on the Corporation. I will not select any individual in particular, but, to come back to the point which I was trying to make earlier, I think that the civilian use of scientific fall-out from defence research could best be


achieved by having somebody from, say, the Ministry of Defence's Scientific Division on the N.R.D.C. I do not know who it should be, and I am not making a firm recommendation, but that is one thought which crosses my mind.
The speech which Lord Halsbury made in another place at the end of last year is of some importance to our discussion today. While he was head of the N.R.D.C., I went to see him over a matter concerning potato harvesting, which the Minister mentioned today. Lord Halsbury said that over and over again the first stage of development disclosed research problems which had to be tackled before development could proceed further and that failing a resolute assault on these, development was blocked. He went on to say that he hoped that no attempt would be made to specify some sort of push-fit between the terms of reference of the two Ministries, so that research was assigned to one and development and technology to the other in an unambiguous sort of way.
If some pure scientist finds that his work has a technological bearing he must be free"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. Is the hon. Member quoting from a Minister in the other place?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I beg pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was trying to put it into indirect speech and I apologise for getting into direct speech. The noble Lord indicated that if a pure scientist found that his work had a technological bearing, he should be free to follow it up. It was up to him alone to have the insight and enthusiasm which would enable it to be followed up adequately. I feel sure that the evidence of Lord Halsbury, in this context, is of immense importance.
Everybody realises that when Lord Halsbury became Chairman of N.R.D.C., he did a magnificent job under considerable difficulty. Whoever succeeds him in the future, and, indeed, the present holder of that office, will be greatly helped by the Bill. I particularly welcome the taking off of the automatic obligation to pay interest and the automatic obligation to keep the outstanding loan on non-profitable exercises.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) presided over a committee of which I was a member. Over about two and a half years we met various distinguished scientists and industrialists. Eventually, we produced a Report, in 1962, under the title, "Science in Industry: the Influence of Government Policy". I commend that Report with great humility to the Minister. I believe that we had some useful constructive thinking in it and we particularly referred to N.R.D.C. What we had in mind was that those projects which were likely to prove particularly unprofitable or those that were likely to take a particularly long time should be placed in a separate category from those whose chances were fairly good. We suggested that we might even have earmarked allocations in finance for those projects on a different basis to the other general run of research.
On reflection. I think that the Minister's solution today is a better one. It gives more discretion and more autonomy to the N.R.D.C. It seems to me to be a little more flexible and, therefore, I welcome it. Even if the Minister adopted what we recommended, there would be a likelihood that the circumstances would change, and if the Minister became tied to one categorisation he might find it difficult to get out of it once the Treasury had approved it. Therefore, the change that the Minister is making in the Bill is for the good.
Mr. Duckworth commented on our Report and he emphasised what we had said, that in practice N.R.D.C.'s problem had been to meet its obligation under the 1948 Act to pay its way. That ought not to be the main factor and I believe that if today's Bill, when it is an Act, does what we believe it to be intended to do, that will not happen. For that reason, it seems to me to be an admirable Bill in itself.
I have been trying to ascertain whether any other country has anything remotely similar to N.R.D.C. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), the new Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I and one or two other hon. Members from the House went last April to Vienna to an interesting conference arranged by O.E.C.D. and the Council of Europe, bringing together Parliamentarians and


scientists from all over Europe and including American representation, although it was not official.
We had a most interesting address from M. Palewski, of France, who, in an extremely able speech in addressing one of the plenary sessions, uttered a truth which is of the greatest importance. To quote from a report at the time, he said:
the daily life of individuals and of nations and the balance of power has been radically affected by modern scientific revolution. This revolution has also had an effect on the work of political parties. It is neither socialism nor communism which reduces the working hours but automation, it is not a given party that imposes co-operation with countries in the process of development but the fact that air travel and television have made the world much smaller.
If we can approach problems like this in that sort of spirit and keep the party aspect to the minimum, so much the better.
We have considerable scope to learn how other countries go about this business. As far as I can make out, there is only one organisation that is remotely comparable to N.R.D.C. and that is the one in Germany, based at Godesberg. It has a long German name, but as I cannot pronounce it I had better not try. It seems to me to have the same conception of things. Strangely enough, if one looks at the Soviet Union and the American situation, they have nothing quite like N.R.D.C. It may be that here again we shall lead the world in the form in which we should link Government science and research to industrial exploitation of what the Government themselves discover through their own research stations.
There is one most important thing which still has to be done, and I hope that the Minister will help us in this. I made this plea before he entered the House of Commons and I hope that he will back us up in pursuing it. These subjects which arise in the sort of context in which we are speaking today are so complex that it is of the utmost importance that hon. Members of this House should be able to meet the people principally carrying out the work in the Government establishments.
The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, with membership on an all-party basis from both Houses of Parliament, as well as people from outside, is a fine body which has clone wonderful work, but it is

not quite adequate to provide the machinery which I want. My hope is that we shall still be able as separate political parties to invite people such as Mr. Duckworth to come and talk to us. I warn the Minister, if he does not know it already, that the Treasury does not like this; it thinks that there is a risk of undermining the position of Ministers. That is arrant nonsense.
This is not the same thing as a Government Department doing day-to-day business with its civil servants immediately responsible to its Ministers. This is virtually a body which is given the maximum independence to get on with a really important scientific job in which there needs to be political feeling one way or the other. As hon. Members of this House, we want to keep ourselves as well versed as possible in what is going on.
It would be unfair to the Minister, to Lord Snow, or to any other member of the Government, to expect them to be able to give us the precise expert account of what is happening. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take up this matter again. I made some headway with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone before the end of the last Parliament and I hope very much that the Minister will back us up in the way I have asked, because I think that he would agree that it is in the interest of the country that hon. Members of this House should be able to meet those who are working in the N.R.D.C. or in any of the other Government research establishments for which he will have some responsibility.
With these words, I again welcome the introduction of the Bill, I congratulate the Minister on his maiden speech and I hope that he will always find it possible to introduce such non-controversial subjects.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: This is an excellent Bill, with an excellent purpose, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing it in a competent manner. Judging by the reaction of hon. Members, I am sure that my right hon. Friend can be satisfied that he has done a good job of work.
I follow the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) in what he said about the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which examines various


aspects of pure and applied scientific research. It does an excellent job, and though it is limited in the contribution that it can make, it plays a great part in the dissemination of knowledge.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) represents an area near Birmingham which has about 2,000 small industries. Very often the small manufacturer needs assistance and guidance in translating an idea into production. I have seen many small inventions which were ideal for small-scale light engineering production, but which never reached the manufacturing stage. It is in such circumstances that the N.R.D.C. could play an important part.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but I think that there is only one scientific research lending library in this country. I understand that plans have been made to build another one on the South Bank, but at the moment we have only one. The war ended 20 years ago, and it is a sad reflection on us that we have only one library to assist people in development and research, both pure and applied.
It is extremely costly to translate an idea into production, and I doubt whether more than a few major manufacturing companies in this country are able to market a product, starting from the development stage, as quickly as many of our competitors are able to do. They have jumped ahead of us during the last 10 years. I am not apportioning blame for this state of affairs. Perhaps it is due to our background. The Industrial Revolution began in this country, and we have certain entrenched ideas. Perhaps we are even a little old-fashioned in our outlook. The fact is, however, that Japan, the United States, and France, are much quicker in taking up inventions and developing them than we are. This is particularly true of Japan. It is surprising how quickly the Japanese develop and market a new idea. It takes them between two and three years to turn an idea into a product and sell it in the markets of the world.
I am sure that most hon. Members have had inventions submitted to them by amateur inventors. I certainly have,

and during the last 10 years I have taken some of them to the Board of Trade. Some of them were extremely useful indeed, and have since been developed. It is here that the N.R.D.C., and what used to be the D.S.I.R., can help, by providing more scientific libraries, by circulating information, and by using films to help people to develop ideas. I see no reason why processes cannot be filmed. I see no reason why lectures cannot be recorded on tape and circulated to technicians in small industries. I see no reason why we should not keep in circulation all the technical and scientific developments that are taking place.
Whenever a Bill is discussed in this House, great emphasis is laid on the fact that something may be done "with the consent of the Treasury". I hope that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely has not frightened my right hon. Friend about this aspect of the matter, because I am sure that many hon. Members will agree that the relationship between the Treasury and the other Departments of State is similar to the relationship between a man and his wife after many years of marriage. The man develops the habit of saying, "I will see whether the wife agrees", but he knows, when he says that, that she will agree. It is my experience, based on 14 years in this House, that in the end the Treasury agrees on matters such as this, and that the phrase, "with the consent of the Treasury", seems to be a cliché and nothing more.
I know that at the moment an argument is going on with the Treasury, but I am sure that "with the consent of the Treasury" will not inhibit my right hon. Friend and his Department from attaining their objectives. I am sure that if at some future date my right hon. Friend is anxious to push ahead with the development of scientific and technological activities and he finds himself in trouble with the Treasury, he will receive the support of many Members on both sides of the House.
I remember that during a debate on shipbuilding many years ago I said that I hoped the day would come when the principal Department of State was not the Treasury, but that of Science and Technology, because I believed that here lay the future of this country. This is a small island of 50 million people. Our


natural resources, such as coal, are diminishing rapidly. We shall have to base our future capacity to earn our living in the world on the work of our scientists and technicians. We shall have to base it on the skilled man in industry; on the men who apply science to producing goods and services; and on selling our scientific products to the world.
Within the next couple of months we shall undertake the annual exercise of examining our national accounts. I would rather have an annual examination of what we have done in science and technology. I would rather have an annual budget of our technical and scientific achievements, than an annual budget of our fiscal progress.
Fiscal action can be taken by means of the regulator. Certain duties can be imposed, while others can be removed, but scientific and technological developments cannot be turned on and off like a tap. Scientific development and research is a continuing process, and I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely that it is wrong to employ a group of people on research and development and then take them off it while they are halfway through their task.
There is nothing more frustrating to a man than to have his train of development stepped half-way through because, for fiscal or other reasons, someone decides that he must be transferred to another job. This is the sort of thing that happens because a board of directors suddenly decides to bring someone else in to take his place. It is imperative to ensure continuity for men who are engaged in research and development. We cannot afford, at the wish of the Treasury, or of anybody else, to have men who are engaged on research and development redeployed every two or three years. We cannot afford to have them switched to some other activity. Continuity is vital.
If we want scientists and technicians to give of their best, we must give them not only an objective, but an assurance that they will not be the victims of economies which may be necessary. The State may decide that we are spending too much and not earning enough. Everyone knows that since 1957 we have been faced with an adverse balance of payments.
We dare not attempt to cut back in education, science and technological

development and invention. If we do we shall seriously damage our future prospects. I dread to think what would happen if anyone was foolish enough not merely to cut back, but to perpetuate or accept a situation in which there was no advance. During the next five years we have to expand to an extraordinary degree our whole scientific educational capacity—our training colleges for teachers in engineering and technology—and I hope that we shall be able still further to increase the provision made in the Bill for advances up to £25 million, which itself is an increase from the former limit of £10 million.
I hope that our scientists and technologists, together with the N.R.D.C. will be so active in developing projects that we shall have to provide more money than we do at present. If they do that, and we spend more money in this direction, and, at the same time, get rid of the old ideas of industry, we ought not to worry too much whether or not interest is paid. The interest will come to us if the contribution that scientists and technologists have made in the past is continued and accelerated at the rate at which my right hon. Friend wants to accelerate it.
I am sure that the Bill will spark off a resurgence of British inventive genius.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to add my congratulations to those extended by other hon. Members to the Minister of Technology both for bringing in the Bill and for the manner in which he did so. I hope that he will not think, because of the thinness of the House at this hour, that it is not regarded as an important Bill. It is. He explained to us the effect of a number of its Clauses, such as the increase in funds for the Corporation, the tidying up of its accountancy, the way in which to deal with its profits, and the right number of members. Those are all continuations of existing policy albeit providing for a wider use of the Corporation's powers, so that it can play a more constructive rôle.
The new development in policy is contained in Clause 4—I do not think that there is any significance in the number of the Clause—which deals with the Corporation's carrying out any project in response to representations made by a


Government Department. I appreciate the reason for subsection (3), in which the Minister retains to himself the right to say "Yea" or "Nay" if another Government Department requires the Corporation to carry out some work for it, but I hope that the Minister will not interfere merely for the sake of building his empire. I hope that he will give freedom for ideas to pass direct from Government Departments to the Corporation.
The right hon. Gentleman's title is "Minister of Technology". I hope that he will keep reminding himself of that. He is not merely the "Minister of Scientific Inventions". Inventions frequently arise from the activities of the technologist—from the man at the workbench—rather than the man at the laboratory bench. They spring from the technologist rather than from the university scientist, and as that is the case the ideas are often stifled, because the technologists do not know where to go or what to do with them.
The technologist is the person who applies science. He is not the research worker. He is not familiar with research and the way in which it develops, and the way in which he can develop his ideas. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is a ready channel from the technologist to the Corporation.
In this connection, I return to Clause 4. It looks rather as if it seeks to put an obstacle in front of anyone who wants to get to the Corporation. First, there is the Government Department, and then the Ministry, before the Corporation gets to work on any new idea. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) spoke of the dissemination of knowledge. I would use a more simple description, and talk about publicity for the channel between the man who has the idea and the Corporation who may develop it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give thought to that point and issue an easily readable pamphlet, document, or booklet, so that the public can understand how to reach the Corporation.
That is technology at one end of the process. There is also technology at the other end. When an idea has been developed into a prototype, to the extent that it is known how to produce something

on the laboratory bench, there comes the process of technology. By that I do not mean necessarily exploiting the invention, but producing and protecting it—what has previously been called the hardware of the invention.
I can best explain this by reference to the teaching hospitals. They frequently make and develop discoveries and then find that they have to buy the hardware for their application from America, because the practical part of the process has been developed there. It has been thought out to its conclusion there whereas in this country it procedeed no further than the first idea. Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, remember that he is Minister of Technology both at the beginning—in getting the ideas from the technologists—and at the end of the process, in producing the technological side of the invention? I repeat that I am not referring to the commercial exploitation of the invention, but its development into the state at which it can be fully used from the technological point of view.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Gregory: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that we are indebted to my right hon. Friend for explaining so clearly and pointedly the kind of work we have to do in research and development. He referred to the way in which this kind of research is applied in industry today and the kind of return that he would expect. He made a telling point when he referred to the structure of applied research in the development and advancement of industry.
My right hon. Friend said, first, that we expected of research that it should provide a positive and recognisable return to industry. He went on to say that we wanted to prevent industry from incurring excessive risks, so as to ensure that the work it did produced a ready return to the private manufacturer, and he then said that developments in industry—and the results of this kind of technological work—ought to be such that would ensure that this country kept pace with what was going on overseas. We emphasised that in the end we want to see this kind of applied research helping us more readily in increasing our exports.
A striking point is that this affects not only the new technological industries but also the older industries such as the one in which I am experienced in the textile field. Here is an industry in a decline asking the research establishment to provide means for it to become more effective. It is the kind of work to which the Corporation is turning in trying to make industry more effective.
Recently I went to the Shirley Institute and saw the kind of work to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. We could see new machinery instead of the ancient kind of machinery known to myself and many others in industry. Today there is cardroom machinery which is automated. This is established in my own constituency in a mill which was developed and prepared for the purpose of carrying out this exercise. When we discussed the work undertaken at the Shirley Institute we found to our horror that this work was being done pretty well on a shoestring. Dr. Hill, the head of the establishment, said the kind of work done in these days would cost about £750,000 a year to enable the establishment to remain in good order and keep working. In the early 1920s the work done cost about £20,000 to £30,000 a year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) referred to the need for more money to be put into this kind of research work. We cannot expect the National Research Development Corporation to produce the needs for the new technological industries, or to revive and make more effective the older ones, unless more money is put into the necessary research. Reverting to what is happening in textiles and applied research, we find that there is not so much a need to rely on the old vegetable fibres. The industry is looking for new means of serving and of making a contribution to the national economy. It is with the assistance of research that this may be done. We know that there are experiments being carried out with polyproplene and new man-made fibres which it is planned to absorb into the production of new textiles which could make a valuable contribution to the industry. This kind of work is going on with the co-operation of N.R.D.C. and the Shirley Institute to produce new and more effective fibres.
I wish to conclude with a plea to my right hon. Friend not just to concentrate on the newer industries and demand that there be a greater inquiry into technological and new techniques, but to ensure that we can give new life to old industries so that they may enjoy all the support of research establishments.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Marples: I wish to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory). At some time we ought to tackle the problem of the older and heavier industries, where there is an enormous amount of leeway to be made up. I am thinking particularly of the construction industry. The future of the nation lies not only with the science-based industries but upon the capacity of the construction industry to build the houses, hospitals and schools we need. In our design work we have somehow to ensure that the construction industry is catered for. We must make sure that the docks are modernised and new docks are built so that the present export handicaps may be overcome. Some Government will have to pay attention to these heavier and older industries.
I should like to join in the praise and congratulations which have been extended to the Minister. Although the right hon. Gentleman is an experienced speaker in many of the curious assemblies which go on from time to time among members of the party opposite, and even though the House of Commons is tolerant and friendly to a maiden speaker, it is still always an ordeal for anyone to have to make a maiden speech. I well remember making mine 20 years ago. I must confess that it was not one of my best speeches, and I finished in the Smoke Room saying, "Thank heaven" and asking for a double whisky, which I had, and it did me a lot of good.
With the Minister and with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)—those two rumbustious and controversial characters—opening the debate, I thought we should never achieve the completely agreeable atmosphere which we did achieve at about four o'clock this afternoon. I almost needed another


double whisky to get over my astonishment. I had imagined that with two quiet Members of the House of Commons, like the Parliamentary Secretary and myself, to wind up this debate, we should be left to bring calm to the proceedings.
I wish particularly to join in what I thought was a gracious tribute by the Minister to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). The Minister was extremely fair, and I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House appreciate his fairness and impartiality. In its Report of 30th June, 1964, the National Research Development Corporation referred to my right hon. Friend's statement in the House of Commons on 28th July, as did the Minister. The Report went on to say:
It is significant that the need for an expansion of the Corporation's activities appears to be generally acceptable and politically uncontroversial.
I should like to echo that. We on this side of the House will do all we can, we shall give a blessing to this Bill and see that its provisions are put into effect in an efficient and speedy way.
I was surprised at the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) when he compared the relationship between the Treasury and Government Departments with that between a man and his wife where the man would say, "I will see if my wife agrees"—he knowing that the wife would automatically agree. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East, with his impeccable logic and passionate rhetoric, has often persuaded me to go from one Division Lobby to the other, but my faith in him has been shattered today. That may be his experience, but it is not mine, and I am bound to say that his knowledge of matrimony seems rather like Sam Weller's knowledge of London, which was "extensive and peculiar".
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is taking over what is quite a good and healthy going concern and expanding it. We shall back it, because it was from this side of the House that the foundations were laid, in the same way as we took over from Sir Stafford Cripps. That often happens when Governments change. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) surprised me when he

said that Members of Parliament were being impeded in their attempts to gather knowledge because of the attitude of the Treasury. During my term of office, both at the Post Office and at the Ministry of Transport, I went out of my way to say to all parties who wished, for example, to have Dr. Beeching to explain rail policy, or some other member of the nationalised industry to speak to them, that I should be delighted to agree. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to have things explained objectively and be able to absorb as much knowledge as possible from the experts.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I think that my right hon. Friend has misunderstood my point. I know that it has been common practice for Ministers to allow all-party delegations to go to various places. I am asking that people should be allowed to talk to individual party committees.

Mr. Marples: That is exactly what I am saying. For example, when Dr. Beeching had the railway reshaping plan, he was asked by both main parties in this House to talk to them. I was delighted that he should explain the plan to the party opposite and to my own back benchers in the Government of the day. It was that which I had in mind. I do not think that I misunderstood my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely, but I was surprised that any obstacle was placed in his way.
There is one other point which I should like to make about the Report, which I have here but which I shall not weary the House with. I have been going through these reports very closely, and I am a little disturbed about one or two things. One is the way in which they refer to their public relations. I think that the N.R.D.C. should be more widely known than it is at the moment. I have been going round industry lately and asking a number of leading industrialists if they knew the objects of the N.R.D.C. and if they knew what it did. The did not know what it did. If one looks at the 1962 Report and those for 1963 and 1964, all of which I have here, it is clear that the N.R.D.C. itself recognises that this is a problem. In 1963, for example, they said:
… we are not satisfied that industry has a sufficient awareness of the Corporation and of


the ways in which it can help firms in furthering the development of inventions of national importance, and in making available for licensing the inventions in its portfolio.
I agree, and I think that we in this House ought to help all we can to see that they get the necessary publicity.
I should like to make a suggestion or two. Would it not be possible to get some of the activities of the N.R.D.C. on television? Of all the things which can bring home to the public the value of the N.R.D.C. television is the most important. This is something which ought to be explained by word of mouth and by pictures and film as well. It is a difficult thing to get across. The information might be put into a play of some sort and then produced on television. I would not go as far as to say that it should appear in" Coronation Street", but if it did it would get a wide audience. I hope that some suggestion of this sort will be considered by the Government.
We have been congratulating ourselves all afternoon, but there are others who deserve congratulation. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely mentioned Mr. Duckworth. I agree with all he said, but I think, also, that we ought to thank the members of the N.R.D.C. for the services which they give to the country, services which are unpaid. They are very busy men. As members of the National Research Development Corporation they have great knowledge of industry and commerce. There are bankers on the Corporation and the chairman, Sir William Black, is extremely experienced. I am sure that the whole House would join with me in thanking them for what they have done.
Another point which was mentioned, I think by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), was the question of the partnership between industry and Government. I am quite certain that this is the right way to tackle this problem. I am equally certain that with industry, as with private individuals, there should be a reward for success and efficiency and that there should be a penalty for failure and muddle. Unless the private firm has some sort of stake in it whereby it can make money if it does well and lose it if it does badly, we shall never be as efficient as we want to be.
I intend some day in the far distant future, when I retire—many years off

yet—to write a book on the nationalised industries, because I have had a great deal of experience with them. What I find is that one of the chief reasons that they are difficult to operate and to get to move fast is because they do not have the deterrent of Carey Street if they fail. The Exchequer is behind them with unlimited resources and everybody, management and men, think that it is a milch cow and that they only have to knock at the door to get the money. They usually get it, although there is a long argument in the process. Shakespeare said:
Security is mortals' chiefest enemy",
and that is what I believe. Therefore, I am glad to see that they are going to join in partnership between industry and Government and also that they are going to try to balance one year with another. In this respect, the Minister has produced a compromise arrangement so that planning one year with another will not be interpreted with rigidity in appropriate cases. I think that this compromise is a very useful one.
I come now to the development projects mentioned in the various reports, one of which is circulated each year. I must say that it is difficult, sometimes, to trace through the progress of a particular project. I hope that attention will be given to this. For example, brooding on this, I looked at the Report for the year ending 1962. On page 23 there is a description of the organo metallic compounds, and it goes on to say:
Quite wide dissemination of the results of this work to the appropriate sections of the chemical industry in this country and abroad has already taken place but further efforts along these lines are continuing. Support for the investigation of the chemistry of these materials is being received from D.S.I.R.
I thought that I would see how this had gone on in 1963. In the Report for 1963, there is no mention of it. I think that the National Research Development Corporation ought to have produced a follow-up in 1963 on this subject. If it is a success they should say so. If it is in the pending stage and development is going on, they should say so. If it is a failure they should say so. I should like them to say something, even if, in the words of the old song, "It is only goodbye".
Another flaw is in the way in which they present these reviews—I hope that


this is a constructive suggestion—of development projects in appendix II. Another is in the Report for 1962 on page 23, on the phototypesetting machine, where the most that is said is:
It is expected that the experimental prototype will be capable of demonstration by the end of 1962.
The Reports for the two following years, 1963 and 1964, do not mention the experimental prototype. I think that subsequent reports should be linked up with preceding reports so that we can form a picture of how a project develops through the years.
There is one other point which I should like to mention, and that is that in the 1964 Report—

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend when he is dealing with the presentation of the reports and making valuable points. Would he, and the Minister, think that this body might well imitate some of the other public bodies which have been making their annual reports a little more interesting with some illustrations and so on? The Colonial Office, in certain Colonies, has done some interesting work of this kind and modern company reports are presented in this way. They do not have to be too glossy, but I think that this helps.

Mr. Marples: I certainly would welcome that, because I think that they are doing valuable work. I am not criticising their work, but we ought to know more about it. The difficulty is that it is the Stationery Office which produces these reports as a White Paper and Statement of Accounts. I found the utmost difficulty with the Treasury in getting more money to present reports in a respectable and reasonable manner, easily understood and intelligibly followed. The only case in which this was done was the Buchanan Report, and even in that case it was a Herculean effort to get them to do it.
There is one other point which I should like the Minister of State to the Board of Trade to answer or at any rate to consider. If he cannot answer it this evening, I would understand, and perhaps we can put down a Question about it. On page 9 of the report for the year ending 30th June, 1964, at the top of the page headed

"D.S.I.R./N.R.D.C. Joint Development Committee", it says:
The Committee was set up in 1958 'to examine development problems of common interest, and to advise the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the National Research Development Corporation on the way in which the proposals for particular development contracts should be handled'.
The Committee in continuing its work during the year considered a number of matters of interest to both organisations, including over 25 potential development projects, and certain surveys of various technological fields".
Does the committee disappear? I want to know whether this committee which, according to the Report, has done good work, will continue.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned some erudite research and development in respect of the fuel cell, and the Atlas project to the moon is using the principles laid down in the fuel cell. I agree with him that many scientific things are going on. One thing which worries me and the average person in the street more than anything else—and this has been mentioned in the Report for the last three years—also causes industry and this country perhaps the greatest losses of all. I refer to the need for a cure for the common cold. It seemes odd that in this scientific age we have all these things being shot off into space, we have transistors which can be seen only through a magnifying glass, and we have micro-miniaturisation leading to a fantastic reduction in size, as in the parts of a computer, and yet we still cannot cure the common cold. I hope that research will concentrate on this, because industry loses an enormous number of man-days a year through people having colds.
I have a selfish interest to declare, because I am prone to catch a cold when I leave the House of Commons. It is very heated here during the debates, and we go straight out into the cold. Very seldom do I seem to have an overcoat with me. I am continually catching cold. For the last three years I have been taking injections, but the curious thing is that I have had more colds with the injections than I had without them. Every time I have a cold the Whips inquire what my majority is.
I believe that there is collaboration taking place between the Medical Research Council, the Glaxo Group and


others, and that they have a private company in which the Corporation and industrial collaborators are shareholders. Could we press them to concentrate on this research, which is of great importance to the country?
The right hon. Gentleman made some points with which I am in profound agreement, and I should like to register that agreement. I think it right that the Government research establishments should assist industry in scientific endeavours. Organisationally, it is a problem of communication between science and industry, and it is a difficult problem. We have Government establishments such as Aldermaston, and there sometimes 100 scientists and technicians are covering a very wide range of knowledge. They have a broader field of knowledge than in any other similar establishment in the country.
Secondly, they have a committee structure which enables them to bring scientists in from other spheres if they want to do so. If there is a problem in industry, they are able to bring a wide range of talents to bear in solving that problem. This broadens the scope of their help to industry, and they can keep on helping industry rather than concentrate only on defence.
If they do this, then industry must play its part, too. I believe that some of the research associations are sometimes too weak and are considered by the individual firms to be too weak. My hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) made a suggestion about cross-fertilisation which has reached him from the Institute of Patentees and Inventors. He will pursue that, but if the Minister can say anything about it in winding up the debate I know that my hon. Friend will be delighted.
I come to the end of a short and non-controversial speech. The Ministry of Technology has produced two Bills. The first was a machinery Bill in which it took powers to take under the control of the Minister a number of establishments, associations and so on. The second Bill is a money Bill, which is very necessary because the money would have run out in 1968, 20 years after 1948. In 1968 it would have had no money to carry on.
We on this side of the House have backed both Bills. We know quite well

that in the job which the right hon. Gentleman has taken on he will be judged more by what he does in that field administratively and by what success he has there than by what he says or what legislation he brings forward. I do not believe that he will have to bring much legislation forward. I think that, very wisely, in the first 100 dynamic days the right hon. Gentleman has made no pronouncement such as those which some of his colleagues have made, and he has not fallen into the trap into which they have fallen.
We on this side of the House will judge him by what he does and tries to do. If we think that he is doing the right thing, we shall certainly back him, and we shall certainly say so. If we think that he is doing the wrong thing, we shall say so, too. As Dr. Johnson said:
We cannot pry into the hearts of men but their actions are open to observation.
We shall watch the right hon. Gentleman's actions. He must, of course, be prepared sometimes for more opposition than he has had in other fields of endeavour. He may meet difficulty. He may find a sticker at the back of his car saying, "Cousins must go". He must bear that bravely. It is one of the crosses which we have to bear. I hope that he will not lose any sleep over it. Of course, he is a much more robust character than someone with the sort of delicate nature I have myself.
This issue is of crucial importance to the country. We on this side of the House are wholeheartedly behind the modernisation of our industry. Nobody ever had a rougher passage than I had in trying to modernise the railways system. I had five tough, battling years in the House and outside trying to modernise our railways system. Everybody wants it modernised—but not their branch line, somebody else's. The right hon. Gentleman will probably have his difficulties, but if he is trying to do the right thing and if his heart is in the right place, we shall back him. If not, we shall oppose him.

6.8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): My right hon. Friend is very grateful for the unanimous welcome which has been given by the House on this issue and the gracious terms in which the welcome has been


expressed. I think that this is the last time that he will get such an easy passage, because I do not think that there are many such pieces of legislation which can be brought forward. I think that this piece is unique.
I should like to join in the congratulations which have been given to my right hon. Friend on making such a successful maiden speech, and here I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that it is best to get over both hurdles at once, if one is to be called to the Dispatch Box, rather than to have two of these embarrassing and somewhat difficult occasions to meet.
I think that it is right that my right hon. Friend should acknowledge, as I do, the work of the previous Administration in the preparation of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) knows very well, the Board of Trade is one of the Departments which have this kind of continuing activity. All that is needed is a Government with drive and determination to put forward the ideas in the first place, and I will note for the record where the idea of the National Research Development Corporation arose.
One or two points have been raised in the debate. In view of the unanimous welcome given by the House, I will deal with questions which have been raised today rather than go into points which can be better dealt with in Committee. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone asked, in view of the proposals made in the Trend Report, why we had chosen to set up our technology organisation and our scientific organisation in this way rather than have one corporation to take over both. It is really a question of whether amalgamation or federation, so to speak, is the best solution. There will be the closest co-operation in both spheres and we consider that this arrangement will work very well indeed.
I suggest, after my short Board of Trade experience, that in view of the tremendous need to stimulate scientific development and the application of scientific invention in industry—the need for a really important technological advance—the subject we are discussing has become so vital that it is worth while giving

the task to a Ministry which has nothing else to do but perform the task properly, although I agree that there must be the closest co-operation with the sponsoring Departments which are associated with industrial development.

Mr. Hogg: That was not the point I was seeking to put. Assuming that the Government are right to have a Minister of Technology and that the consequence of that is that the industrial heart of D.S.I.R. and N.R.D.C. is under that Minister, why do they not go back to Trend to amalgamate those two in a single corporation?

Mr. Darling: Perhaps I am attempting to squeeze the two aspects of the matter too closely together in my remarks. We believe, and this has been fully discussed, that pure science which is carried on in the universities and other establishments should be left there. We equally believe that we can pick up, with the closest co-operation, the other side: the application of science. We therefore think that this organisation will work and we wish to see it succeed.
The right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) in giving full support to the Bill, said that he would help us in Committee to knock it into shape where hon. Members thought that that needed to be done. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support because, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will understand, I do not want to be involved in two disputatious Bills one after the other. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Wallasey and his hon. Friends will help me on the first so that we can get this Measure going fairly soon.
The right hon. Member for Wallasey also referred to publicity for the N.R.D.C., and I can assure him that we thoroughly agree with the sentiments he expressed. There must indeed be far more publicity given throughout industry to what is being done by the N.R.D.C., to the opportunities available for industrial management as a result of the services of the Corporation, and to how those services might be useful to them. In this connection, there is also the question of publications of a more popular character, rather than the official type of report which the N.R.D.C. now makes. It will probably be convenient for hon. Members to discuss this


aspect when we come to Clause 2(7) in Committee.
I will not take up the point which the right hon. Member for Wallasey made about the common cold. His proposition, that a lot more attention should be paid to it, has my sympathy because, like him, I find that as soon as I start travelling, in trains and so on, after leaving the House I am apt to succumb to the common cold. In fact, I can feel one coming on now.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), who I regret is not in his place, raised the question of civilian development contracts and the Service Departments. This is an important matter, and the intention of Clause 4 is to provide for civil contracts because these involve commercial negotiations and are, therefore, appropriate to the N.R.D.C. If the Service Departments wish to place defence contracts they can, but the N.R.D.C. is unlikely to handle a purely defence contract.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) made some interesting comments about the development of fuel cells and energy conversion. He spoke of the great job which has already been done by the N.R.D.C. We understand from the Corporation that this matter is being studied by Energy Conversion Limited, in which, as he knows, the N.R.D.C. is interested. My right hon. Friend is also keenly interested in this matter and I can assure the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that it will be followed up with all the force and energy we can devote to it.
I was interested in his reference to being requested by the late Sir Winston Churchill to deal with fog dispersal at airports. This is a line of thought which we might well consider, because when we think back to the development of, say, the tank—with which Sir Winston was associated—and other inventions we realise that we can now always begin by saying, "Nothing is impossible". We can get rid of the cautious types who say, "We cannot make further progress. Nothing can be done. All the technical arguments are against it." We can now say with all the force of past experience, "Nothing is impossible. Let us get on with the job".

Mr. Marples: What about the common cold?

Mr. Darling: I see no reason why we cannot apply that sort of thinking even to the common cold. While on the subject, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke about medical research. I appreciate that he is interested in this subject. He asked for more co-operation with the Medical Research Council. I have an interest here, because for the last five years I have been on the Executive Committee of The Fund for Research into Poliomyelitis and other Crippling Diseases. The Fund has a considerable amount of money, and since it does not need to spend a great deal now on research to find a polio vaccine, it is turning its activities to other crippling diseases, particularly to medical engineering for people who are crippled and who it is trying to help to lead normal lives.
When projects now come before us we must consider them and ask, "Is this a cranky idea? Is there any merit in it? How much should be spent on it? Should we give the inventor the money he needs to develop it and, having done that, will it pay off? What will the losses be? How, if the idea is successful, can we persuade private industry to become involved and so make it a commercial proposition? "These are difficult question to answer and we must consider them when discussing the Bill.
I agree that there must inevitably be some financial discipline. However, we must assume that if the Corporation is to do its job properly it must not be too cautious. It must sometimes go in for things which may seem impossible. For this reason we must make provision for losses which may arise from this sort of enterprise and initiative.
The hon. Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) summed up his remarks by asking a question which, I am pleased to tell him, my right hon. Friend has enabled me to answer. My right hon. Friend will be glad to discuss the problems of the small inventor and how he can be helped as soon as arrangements can be made for a meeting.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) paid tributes to the members of the N.R.D.C. and to Mr. Duckworth. My hon. Friends and I wish to be associated with them. They


are not only doing a fine job in the tasks they are requested to perform but they often operate on their own initiative. To use an American expression, their initiative goes beyond the bounds of duty.
The hon. Member spoke of the importance of the Government seeing that people were retained on a project until it was ended, so that they might see things through. That is very important, and my right hon. Friend asks me to say that he will take it into consideration. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) knows, I have had some experience in this respect. When we were dealing with the Weights and Measures Bill I tried, in Opposition, to put down a number of very constructice Amendments that would have made that Measure very much better, only to find that the people who had prepared it had disappeared. They had been promoted, and a completely new group of civil servants in the Board of Trade were looking after the Measure. It was an excellent Bill, and those who had prepared it probably deserved their promotion, but I wish that they had been around to see that project through to its completion. That is an important point, as also was the hon. Member's observation that there must be no politics in research jobs. That point is very clearly taken.
The intention in appointing the two extra members is to broaden the scope of the N.R.D.C. Their selection is very much under consideration, and it must be associated with this broadening of the scope. Before making any public pronouncements, my right hon. Friend wants to look a little more closely at all the aspects.
My right hon. Friend is also looking into the hon. Member's suggestion that hon. Members should be allowed to meet more of the people engaged in Government research. There are difficulties in this, but my right hon. Friend agrees that in this rapidly changing field, with technical and scientific processes coming along all the time and quickly changing our lives in many respects, there is a real need for scientists, technicians and politicians to meet more frequently to discuss what is going on. It is largely a question of finding the right kind of organisation in which such meetings can take place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) made some excellent suggestions which my right hon. Friend will note, especially the proposal, made also by other hon. Members, for disseminating more technical information, and doing it in a more popular way.
The useful observations made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on the organisation involved in the Bill will be noted, as will be the important role of the technologists in the production of ideas and inventions on the one hand and also of making sure that they are properly carried out, and that there is the right kind of equipment to do the job. The hon. Member also spoke of the need for publicity on how inventors can get to the N.R.D.C. These ideas were also taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory).
My right hon. Friend has said publicly on two or three occasions that we must tackle the older and well-established industries as well as giving help to the newer ones which are coming on, so that we can give the well-established industries a new life of active progress if there is a field of future development in which they can play an important part.
I understand that about 43,000 patents are taken out every year. Some of these are for small developments which, in themselves, probably do not contribute a great deal to our technical progress. Others may be impossible to carry out. A great number of them are of real importance to industrial development but, judging from the figures, many of them stop at the point where they are registered as patents because no one is interested in taking them up in order to find out whether they can make a contribution to our well-being in the industrial world. I understand that the petrochemicals industry produces about one new invention every day, but the difficulty lies in development, and in how we use the resources of the industry to make the ideas worth while.
We have these matters under consideration, and my right hon. Friend is well informed on them. We do not want any attempt by hon. Members opposite to create demarcation disputes. The cooperation we have between the various


Government Departments will make absolutely certain that whatever good work comes forward—and plenty of good results will come from the Ministry of Technology—there will be, on the part of the various Government Departments—the sponsoring Departments, as it were—the fullest co-operation to see that industry, and technical progress generally, benefits from what is done.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Wallasey that in this Bill, and in its continuing development, so to speak, we are perpetuating that extremely useful partnership between Government, technologists and industry upon which I am sure all hon. Members will agree the future prosperity and well being of the country now depend.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Development of Inventions Acts 1948 to 1958, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the increase from £10 million to £25 million of the limit on the amount of advances to the National Research Development Corporation which can be made under Section 7 of the Development of Inventions Act 1948, the removal of any restriction on the time within which and the purposes for which the advances can be made, and their payment out of money provided by Parliament instead of out of the Consolidated Fund,
(b) the remission of any liability of the Corporation in respect of any such advances, including advances already made,
(c) the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

(i) of sums to be paid to the Corporation by the Minister and to be used by the Corporation to meet interest due on any such advances, and
(ii) of sums paid to the Corporation by any Government department other than

the Post Office in connection with any project carried out by the Corporation in response to representations made by the Government department, and
(iii) any increase in money so payable attributable to an increase in the membership of the Corporation,

(d) any payment into the Exchequer.—[Mr. Cousins.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.28 p.m.

The Home Secretary (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short Bill, somewhat technical in character, but it makes what, in the view of the Government, is an important change in the law of evidence in criminal cases. I should state at once that its effect is this. It makes admissible as evidence in criminal cases certain commercial records which hitherto have often been admitted and have been thought to be properly admissible. This was the view which was taken by the courts until a recent decision of the House of Lords in the case of Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions.
I think that I can probably indicate to the House the purpose of the Bill, which is, in effect, to deal with the situation which results from the decision of the House of Lords to which I have referred, by shortly describing what was in issue in that case. It was a criminal case. A man called Myers had been convicted on a number of counts relating to stolen cars. He was a man of not inconsiderable ingenuity and he had developed a method which was as follows. He used to acquire a wrecked car and, having acquired it—having purchased it—he used to disguise a car which he had stolen—to make it fit into the details in the logbook of the wrecked car. In this way he was enabled to carry on a handsome business in disposing of stolen cars camouflaged by the logbooks of the wrecked cars which he had otherwise acquired.
There was only one serious defect about a scheme which I think ultimately led to his undoing. What he could not do was to change the block numbers


which were indelibly stamped on the engines of those stolen cars. The numbers so stamped on the engines of the stolen cars had been recorded, not in the logbooks, but in records which were kept by the car manufacturers who produced those cars. The position was that, whilst the car was on the assembly line, a workman would record on a card the block number stamped on the engine. The card was then microfilmed and the card, having been microfilmed, was destroyed, so that the microfilm record remained.
When the case came for trial the keeper of the microfilm gave evidence. The evidence he gave was from his microfilm records. His evidence showed that cars stolen by Myers had block numbers belonging to stolen cars and not to the wrecked cars to which the logbooks purported to relate.
It was held that that evidence was hearsay evidence and was, accordingly, not admissible evidence. The argument was that what the witness, the person who kept the microfilm records, told the court was something that another person—the workman—had asserted when he first recorded the number on the engine and the evidence was given for the purpose of establishing the truth of that workman's record. The result was that the evidence was held by a majority decision of the House of Lords to be inadmissible evidence. It was held to be inadmissible on the ground that hearsay evidence is not admissible in a criminal case.
That, perhaps, is too general a statement, because there have been certain admissible and recognised exceptions which permit of evidence which would otherwise be objectionable on the ground that it was hearsay being admitted in court. That, however, did not cover these microfilm records and, as I have said, the House of Lords by a majority, with some reluctance, decided that that evidence was not admissible. It was conceded that records of engine block numbers were most valuable in identifying stolen cars and that, without such evidence, the prosecution would be severely hampered in a number of cases of fraud and defendants who deserved to be convicted might escape conviction. It was recognised by the House of Lords that the practice was a desirable one,

but obviously their Lordships had to bow to what they decided was the law; and, as I have said, by a majority this evidence was excluded.
The Government agree that it is certainly desirable that the rule excluding this evidence should be altered so as to make it admissible. The Bill was worked out before the present Government came to power, and I pay my tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), for having initiated the studies on the Bill. There are various different circumstances in which hearsay evidence is admissible. Evidence is admissible from public records. Evidence in the form of statements made by persons who have since died is admissible. There are a number of other categories of exceptions, but none of them applies in this case.
The way in which the Government have thought it right to go about the Bill is to model it on the basis of an existing Act—the Evidence Act, 1938—which provides for the admission in civil proceedings of a good deal of documentary evidence which would otherwise not be admissible in court. The Bill, which I commend to the House, is one which is applicable to criminal proceedings and seeks to make by its provisions a not very different category of documents admissible in criminal cases as is admissible now in civil cases.
The House will see that Clause 1(1) is the principal provision of the Bill. It provides as follows:
any statement contained in a document … shall, on production of the document, be admissible as evidence
in any criminal proceedings as evidence of a fact, provided that certain conditions are satisfied.
The first of those conditions is a general one, namely, that direct evidence of the fact would be itself admissible. The second condition, which the House will see in paragraph (a), is that the document must be, or form part of, a record relating to any trade or business, and must have been compiled from information suppled by persons who had personal knowledge of the fact or may have reasonably been supposed to have had such knowledge. This provision enables, in the Myers type of case, the keeper of the microfilm records to produce records


compiled from information supplied by workmen on the assembly line.
The third condition, which appears in paragraph (b), is that the person who supplied the information—in the Myers case, the assembly line workman—is physically unable to give evidence, or cannot be identified or found, or could not reasonably be expected to remember the facts—that is, the actual block number on a particular engine in the Myers case. This provision recognises that, although the person having knowledge of the facts should be called to give evidence whenever practicable, the evidence of a central record might be more reliable than the recollection of the workman on the assembly line.
Subsections (2) and (3) contain ancillary provisions relating to the admission of evidence under subsection (1). The definitions in subsection (4) of terms used in the Bill take account of modern techniques for the keeping and storage of information by microfilm, computer, or tape recording. For example, the statement need not be recorded in words, but may be recorded by symbols, or even by electronic impulses stored in a computer.
That is the short objective of the Bill. It is designed to prevent persons who may be thoroughly guilty being enabled to escape because in the nature of things their evidence cannot be brought home to them. It is a Bill which contains what I hope the House will think are the necessary safeguards to see that persons accused are not faced with evidence which they are not able properly to test by examination and otherwise. I believe that the Bill fills a useful purpose and closes an existing gap which until the Myers decision was not thought to exist in our criminal evidence law.
I commend the Bill to the House.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: We on this side of the House welcome this small but important measure of reform of our law of evidence. This part of the law, as I am sure the Home Secretary will be the first to concede, is composed of a complex mosaic of judge-made law, amended by Statutes during this and the last century. We think that it is a most important branch of the law, because one of its main purposes, if not its sole purpose,

is to ensure that the law shall be impartial and fair and ultimately result in a just decision.
Unhappily, it is also a branch of the law that is marked by what one cannot help but feel is undue difficulty and confusion, and it frequently produces a waste of money and of time that could well be and, we think, ought wherever possible to be avoided. I suggest that there is hardly a branch of the law that stands more in need of reform than the law of evidence, and it is high time that we did something about it. Happily, the Bill makes a start on the right road.
Perhaps the most difficult problem is to decide how far the hearsay rule should be modified, particularly as to documents. As I understand the hearsay rule—and I have the authority of a most distinguished jurist—it is the oral or written assertion of persons other than the witness who is testifying, and as such that statement will be inadmissible as the truth of what is being asserted. It seems quite clear that any relaxation of the present rules needs the strictest care to avoid substituting dangerous laxity for absurd rigidity.
As applied to criminal cases—and the Bill amends the law in criminal cases—one clear principle appears to dominate all others. It is the need to give special protection to accused persons. I do not think that anyone would dispute that as a necessity. There has been consequently a firm refusal to admit documents which are not proved by their makers, and the prohibition of the admission of hearsay evidence as such.
As the Home Secretary has pointed out, the recent decision of the House of Lords in the Myers case has made it now the law that the sort of document that was then put before the court would be inadmissible, as being hearsay evidence. We have no doubt on this side of the House that an amendment to the law was necessary. Indeed, the House of Lords made it quite clear that the Legislature would have to intervene to bring the law up-to-date and make such records admissible.
It is quite obvious that in relaxing the rules there is always the danger, and one has to be very careful in this, of creating an injustice. I suggest to the House that we must remember that


justice is always two-sided. In criminal law it must be justice to the accused and justice to the public at large. Over-rigid rules aimed at protecting the accused person can all too easily lead to injustice, for it is just as much an injustice where the guilty escapes as where, in the rarest of cases, an innocent person is convicted. It would seem that in our passion—and I think that it is a laudable passion that we have—to give the accused person every chance of acquittal we at times seem all too ready to make and apply rules which defeat the ends of justice by allowing the guilty to go free.
The Bill allows hearsay evidence and, as the Home Secretary has indicated, hearsay evidence is of such a character that it must be by its very nature dangerous and as such is to be mistrusted. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, it escapes the test of cross-examination. It opens the way to abuse, and its admission in criminal cases must always be viewed with the utmost caution.
We have precedents for the admission of hearsay evidence under the provisions of various statutes. The obvious one in criminal cases is perhaps the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879. The present Bill seems to us to have an excellent ambition and, in the main, carries out its objectives without any offensive provisions, but looking at Clause (1,b) that is, the provision relating to the person who supplies the information, one reads, and with approval in the main, words which were first introduced into the Evidence Act, 1938. I have no criticism to make of that use of those words, but in addition to those words there is the provision in effect that the person who supplied the information cannot reasonably be expected to remember the facts. It seems to me that this is a somewhat novel approach and I am not at all certain that it is an introduction of a provision that could be abused.
When the Solicitor-General replies to the debate, I suggest that it would be very useful if he could deal with this particular use of this provision, because although it completely satisfies the requirements, as they were exposed as being necessary in the Myers case, it seems to us that it opens the door a little too wide. It may be that such a provision could invite the admissibility of

evidence that could well lead to injustice.

Mr. W. T. Williams: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not feel that the thing which he fears is well safeguarded against by the fact that in the words in brackets
(having regard to the time which has elapsed since he supplied the information and to all the circumstances)
there is sufficient provision for the exercise of the discretion of the judge which I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me in criminal cases is invariably not abused?

Mr. Gardner: I would agree entirely with the hon. and learned Member. I had carefully read those qualifying words that they provide a safeguard, as, no doubt, they are intended to provide.
In most cases one can rely on the discretion and good sense of the judge to ensure that a provision of this kind is not abused, but I do not regard it as a complete answer in every case to say that we can rely on the learned judge to exercise his discretion not only with propriety, but with complete good sense, so that there is an immaculate safeguard. If there is need for a safeguard, the safeguard should be in the Bill, and, if anything appears in the Bill which is likely to be abused, we should, in my view, delete it.
It is for that reason that I invite the Solicitor-General to make such comments as he may upon my appreciation, if it be a valid appreciation, of a potential danger.

Mr. W. T. Williams: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that there is already in our criminal law provision for precisely this kind of discretion. One thinks, for instance, of the judges' rules on the admissibility of evidence, statements made by an accused person, and the like. It is almost invariably left to the discretion of the judge. If for any reason the judge mistakes his discretion or uses it wrongly, there is always available the Court of Criminal Appeal or the Divisional Court.

Mr. Gardner: The hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware that the discretion which the judge would exercise where an accused person has made a statement, whether voluntary or


involuntary, in certain circumstances, can, if it is abused, be tested by the Court of Criminal Appeal. But, as he knows, a decision by a judge to exercise discretion in cases of that kind is rarely interfered with by the Court of Criminal Appeal. In considering legislation of this kind, I think it right that we should be guided by such models as we have and avoid pitfalls which we can foresee. I see the possibility of a pitfall here, and I think it right that the House should have the opportunity of hearing the Government's views on this form of words.
Apart from that apprehension and note of caution, there is little else in the Bill which we regard as exposed to serious criticism. The Bill is, obviously, the beginning of what we hope will be a substantial reform of this branch of the law. We are most anxious on this side, as, I am sure, are many right hon. and hon. Members opposite, including the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Home Secretary, to see rapid, sensible and useful law reform. We may have our conflicts about the best manner in which this reform should be achieved, but we recognise, as the last Conservative Administration recognised, that the law of evidence is one of the most complex parts of the English law.
The last Conservative Administration decided that it was time for its complete review and for a careful scrutiny of such rules as the restriction on the admission of hearsay evidence and the extent to which documentary evidence may be admitted.
Last September, a Conservative Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary together ordered a comprehensive review of the law of evidence to be undertaken by the Law Reform Committee and the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Both those Committees have among their chairman and members some of the most distinguished members of the judiciary. The terms of reference which were given to them were:
To review the law of evidence in civil and criminal cases, and to consider whether changes are desirable in the interests of the fair and efficient administration of justice; and in particular to consider what provisions should be made for modifying rules which have ceased to be appropriate in modern conditions.

The Bill falls within the guidance which those terms of reference gave. In general, it allows for an amendment of the law of hearsay which is desirable—to quote the terms of reference again—
in the interests of the fair and efficient administration of justice".
For that reason, we on this side support it.

6.55 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I am rather overwhelmed by the large number of hon. and learned Gentlemen who are considering these matters, but I should like certain assurances about the Bill from the Solicitor-General. Everyone agrees that, in principle, it meets the Myers case and is a good Measure, but I am concerned lest, in certain respects, it extends the law. The points I have to raise are essentially Committee points, although I think it of importance to ascertain now what the position is.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) has already referred to the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879. There was a subsequent similar Act dealing with criminal matters. I should like to be satisfied that the Bill does not in any sense extend the area at present covered by the law relating to the production of bankers' books.
The second point arises in connection with a statement which might be made by an accused person to a policeman who subsequently became unavailable for any of the reasons set out in Clause 1(1,b). Would such a statement be admissible under the Bill where it might not be admissible under the present law?
Thirdly, when the Home Secretary said that one of the devices which might be used on these occasions was a computer, my heart sank a little because it is not yet established that computers are necessarily and always accurate. In the circumstances, I feel that further consideration might properly be given to that matter.
Those are the points which I raise. I have put them shortly but, although they are, in a sense, Committee points, they raise questions which affect my view of the Bill.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: It is with the greatest diffidence that I speak on a Bill of this kind after the speeches we have had from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner), to whom I listened with the greatest respect. Nevertheless, I feel that I must speak because the Bill applies to Scotland and there are serious sidelights to it which could radically alter the law of Scotland. I am very surprised that there is not a Scottish Minister present.
There is, of course, no Scottish Law Officer in the House, but at least the Secretary of State, or one of the Under-Secretaries of State, might have had the courtesy to appear on the Front Bench and give the Scottish point of view. I am extremely upset about this, because it seems to me that the Scottish and English laws of evidence are completely different and although the foundation of the Bill is a case in the House of Lords which, of course, applies in some instances to Scotland, that case was not dealing with Scottish law. Indeed, the Scottish law was not under consideration.
I am not learned in the law, but it is my view that the law of hearsay in criminal cases in Scotland is sufficient to cover this case, because hearsay has always been admitted in a criminal case where it forms part of the res gestae of the case.
In the circumstances which have been described, the hearsay to which the House of Lords objected formed part of the res gestae and would have been admitted in a Scottish case. That is one point on which I would like the opinion of the Solicitor-General as far as he considers himself sufficiently learned in Scottish law to be able to give an answer. There is another and much more vital aspect for Scotland.
This concerns whether the Bill will materially affect the basic and cardinal principle of the law of Scotland that evidence must be corroborated in criminal cases. The Bill as drafted may very well, it seems to me, import a completely new principle into Scottish law in that, in certain circumstances, evidence may not require corroboration, especially where it is evidence brought in under

this Bill. I suggest there is some substance for this anxiety because, in the law of Scotland, certain writings are regarded as privileged which make a half publication in themselves. These include merchants' books.
All the authorities we have been given so far have been drawn from the law of England. We have heard about bankers' books, but, as far as I know, Scottish law is different in that merchants' books in themselves—and they might be taken to cover those records which came up in the Myers case—have a privileged position, although possibly, in criminal law, it seems to me that merchants' books and records would require corroboration in the same way.
It seems to me that, under the Bill, the necessity for corroboration may disappear altogether, because Clause 1(3) gives discretion to the court as to the weight which may be given to evidence of this kind. It might well be that a Scottish court would think that Parliament intended it to decide a case upon such records without the corroboration essential in Scotland in the past.
For that reason, I ask the Solicitor-General to deal with that point. If he does not find himself able to do so, I hope that he will consult the Scottish Law Officers about it and, possibly at a later stage, give us a balanced judgment. I see that the Secretary of State for Scotland has appeared on the Front Bench. I do not think that he heard the first part of my argument. Perhaps he is sufficiently advised by his Law Officers to reply to the points I have raised. If he does so, I shall be much obliged.

7.5 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): This, I understand, is the first occasion on which the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) has addressed the House from the Front Bench. May I, as an old personal friend, congratulate him on his elevation?
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the difficulty and confusion that we often find in the law of evidence and, as he rightly said, both the law of evidence in criminal matters and the civil law of evidence are being examined, in the one case by the Criminal Law Revision Committee and in the other by the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform


Committee. But, of course, these examinations are bound to take time. It may be a matter of months or even of years before these committees report and before it is possible for Parliament to take the necessary action.
The Government and, I think, the Opposition, regard this matter as being one of urgency. Anyone who reads the speeches in the House of Lords in the Myers ease realises that the three noble Lords who formed the majority arrived at their conclusion with considerable reluctance but felt that they could not themselves extend the law and that it was a matter for Parliament. In fact, what we had in the speeches of all five Law Lords was a recommendation that the law should be clarified and if necessary amended. That is what we are doing with the Bill.
The hon. and learned Gentleman, of course, spoke about any relaxation of the present rules as being, on the face of it, undesirable. We all know the objections to hearsay evidence. A passage from an earlier edition of Halsbury said this:
The reasons for the rejection of 'hearsay' are many—the fallibility of human nature and human memory, the impossibility of testing its truthfulness for want of cross-examination, the opportunities for fraud its admission would open, the irresponsibility of the original declarant, the depreciation of truth in the process of repetition, the absence of an oath, the want of an opportunity to observe demeanour and the waste of time involved in listening to idle rumour.
These are, of course, objections with which we are familiar in hearsay evidence and which have been developed by the courts over the last 250 years. But, as Lord Pearce pointed out in his speech in the Myers case, scarcely a single one of these considerations has any relevance to the kind of evidence we are considering at this moment.
We are considering a case where the best evidence is the evidence of the record, although technically it may be hearsay evidence. Hon. Members opposite have had in mind the desirability in such cases as the Myers case of leading this sort of evidence on behalf of the prosecution. But it may happen that the defence would desire to lead evidence of this character, and one would have a considerable miscarriage of justice from the point of view of the defence if such evidence were shut out for the future.
One can imagine a Myers case in reverse in which it might be possible for the defence to defeat the prosecution's case by calling evidence of records of this kind. That is, we believe, one reason, and a very powerful reason, why such evidence should be available—and available, of course, to either side in a criminal case.
The hon. and learned Gentleman specifically referred to the last five lines in Clause 1(1,b):
… or cannot reasonably be expected (having regard to the time which has elapsed since he supplied the information and to all the circumstances) to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in the information he supplied.
I say at once that that is new, but it seems to us that a provision of this kind is required when we consider such a case as the Myers case. 'These lines are intended to cover the case of eye witnesses who cannot be expected in the nature of things to have any knowledge of the facts, where they simply have to keep a record.
Even in the Myers case, if the witnesses who marked the original numbers on the card could have been found, they would have been, one supposes, quite valueless as witnesses, because they could not have had the slightest recollection of the facts. It is inconceivable that they could have remembered the precise numbers which they had recorded in the way which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has described—and remembered—them years afterwards.
Therefore, even if these witnesses had been available, they could not have given evidence of the slightest value either to the prosecution or to the defence. But that would not in any way have affected the value of the record. We are dealing with a case where the record has value and the recollection of the particular witnesses has none. Therefore, although this is an innovation, it is a desirable innovation and enables us to meet the sort of circumstances encountered in the Myers case.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) asked for an assurance that the Bill does not extend the law. In a sense, it extends the law because it adds one more category to the limited categories of hearsay evidence which may be


admitted. But it does not represent any extension of the law in principle.
The hon. Gentleman then asked whether the Bill affected in any way the law relating to bankers' books. I can give him an assurance on that. Clause 2(2) provides that
Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the admissibility of any evidence which would be admissible apart from the provisions of this Act.
The law on the production of bankers' books under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act is unaffected by the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman went on to ask whether the Bill affected statements made to police officers. Again, I can give him an assurance. If he looks at the scope of the Bill, he will see that it refers only to commercial records and that it cannot touch in any way statements made to police officers.
I say at once that I approach the observations of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) with very considerable diffidence. I do not claim to be competent to address the House on the law of Scotland, but I undertake to ensure that the points which he made are fully examined—indeed,I will examine them in consultation with my colleagues the Scottish Law Officers—before the Committee stage. But, pending that consultation, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman in some measure.
The hon. Gentleman described the law as to res gestae. As I understand it, the law of Scotland in that connection is precisely the same as the law of England. In England, there are certain statements which are held to be part of the res gestae and are admitted in evidence.
The hon. Member expressed apprehension about whether this Bill might affect the law of Scotland on corroboration in criminal cases. He is right, I understand, in suggesting that the law of Scotland on corroboration goes somewhat further than the law of England. But there are many cases in England in which corroboration is required either by statute or as a matter of practice. I will fortify myself before the Committee stage on the law of Scotland, but I would say that, where the law requires corroboration of any kind of evidence or in any circumstances, the Bill does not touch it at all.

Sir E. Errington: I thank the Solicitor-General for what he has said. I should like an assurance, however, that the matter raised by the Home Secretary about records, including records kept by computer, will be dealt with, because it is important. The Bill opens a door, as I understand it, and if the door admits something of error it might be a serious matter.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry that I overlooked that point. It is possible that a record may be in error, however it is kept, whether by mechanical means such as computers or in any other way. We cannot rule out the possibility of some kind of clerical error being made. That is something with which the court will have to deal. But we are dealing with a particular class of evidence which consists in records of matters of which witnesses, in the nature of things, cannot have any exact recollection or often any recollection at all. Therefore, one can prove or disprove only what is in issue by reference to the records. What we say is that it defeats the purposes of justice when perfectly good evidence—what is, indeed, in the circumstances, the best evidence—is excluded because of this somewhat technical application of the rule against hearsay.
Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility that even the computer may go wrong. We say that we are far more likely to reach an accurate conclusion about somebody's guilt or innocence in the courts if this form of evidence were admissible in future. Therefore, the risk which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is much less than the risk which we run under the law as it has recently been declared in the House of Lords.
We will consider again very carefully before and during the Committee stage the various points of detail made by the three Members on the Opposition benches who have addressed the House. However, there is no real objection to the principle of the Bill, which I commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — PROBATION OFFICERS AND CLERKS (SUPERANNUATION)

7.17 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move,
That the Probation Officers and Clerks (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
These Regulations are needed because of changes in the organisation of the Probation Service resulting from the Administration of Justice Act, 1964, and other changes brought about by the London Government Act, 1963. I could go into more detail if hon. Members wish to raise any points, but their effect, briefly, is that as from 1st April, 1965, probation staff employed by the inner and outer London probation committees shall participate in the fund of the Greater London Council and be subject to the general local government superannuation.
The Regulations do not seek to protect the individual superannuation rights of staff in post on 31st March, 1965, who will be transferred to the inner and outer London committees. This will be done in an order under Section 35 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1964, to be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
The opportunity has been taken to make two other minor changes concerning probation committees generally. Any appeal against a discretionary decision in the superannution field of a probation committee by the local authority which is to defray the expenses of that committee will in future be determined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary instead of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
The other change is an alteration in the formula for calculating the length of service of the whole-time officer who has previously worked part time. The regulations have been drafted in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the associations representing the local authorities, the Greater London Council, the London County Council, the Central Council of Probation Committees and the National

Association of Probation Officers, as well as the National and Local Government Officers' Association. They represent an agreed measure.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: We on this side welcome the Regulations. We congratulate the Government on their enthusiasm in taking up the challenge of the reorganisation of local government and the modernisation of Britain, for which they did not show so much enthusiasm before. Here, however, we have an earnest of it.
The Regulations refer to "the Secretary of State" in the singular. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the Secretary of State would be the Home Secretary, but I have an idea that any Secretary of State can operate for any other Secretary of State. Possibly the Minister can give me confirmation of this.
The National Association of Probation Officers has asked me to say that it very much welcomes the Regulations and I hope that the House will agree to them.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is not getting away with it as lightly as that. He did not really attempt to explain the Regulations to the House. They contain some peculiar provisions, not, perhaps, in their merits, but in their shape.
I understand that the Regulations are necessary because of the Administration of Justice Act, 1964, the creation of the Greater London area and the setting up of the five committees for inner London and four for outer London. The superannuation of the probation staff to be employed by these new committees is dealt with in the Regulations. The Regulations do not, however, endeavour to protect the individual interests of existing employees. The Regulations appear to deal with employees to be employed in the future by the new committees but they do not in any way deal with the position of the members of the existing staff who are not taken on by the new committees. What is to be the position of those people and their position under the superannuation fund, to which they have contributed?
The Regulations deal with the whole-time staff employed by the new committees for inner London. I wish to distinguish here between the whole-time and the part-time probation staff and also between those employed by the inner London committees and those employed by the outer London committees. As I read the Regulations, the whole-time staff employed by the new committees for inner London will participate in the superannuation fund of the Greater London Council. The part-time staff, however, will not participate at all. It is true that they did not come within the London County Council superannuation fund and I understand, therefore, that they are entirely left out from the scheme under these Regulations.
When one refers, however, to the staffs employed by the outer London committees, both whole-time and part-time staff come into the scheme of the Greater London Council superannuation fund. This, I believe, is because the part-time staff in outer London were catered for by the several local authority superannuation funds, which seem to have been more generous than the London County Council.
To sum up, this part of the Regulations seems to deal with the whole-time staff of the inner London committees and the whole-time and part-time staff of the outer London committees, but leaves in the air the part-time staff of the inner London committees. So much for that point.
I want now to refer to the transfer of functions to the Secretary of State. I understand that the responsibility for the expenses of the Inner London Probation Committee rests with the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District. He has to find the funds to support the Inner London Probation Committee. Therefore, the Regulations provide that any decisions made with regard to the superannuation fund shall be referred for approval to the Secretary of State and not, as elsewhere, to the local authority.
I wonder whether that is really necessary. It seems to put the Inner London Probation Committee in a quite exceptional position. It is surely the local authority and not the Secretary of State who should approve decisions made in connection with the superannuation fund,

even if for convenience it comes under the responsibility of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police district for the purpose of defraying expenses.
My third point is that at first sight the Regulations appear to refer entirely to the reorganisation of the Greater London area, but from the last paragraph of the Explanatory Note I see that
The regulations amend generally the provisions of the 1954 regulations concerning the reckoning of part-time service. They also substitute the Secretary of State for the Minister of Housing and Local Government as the appellate authority where any council is dissatisfied with a discretionary decision on superannuation matters of the probation committee whose expenses it defrays.
Those two points are general. They are tucked into the Regulations, which otherwise refer to Greater London. My complaint is that the Explanatory Note does not state where we find the general points in the Regulations as opposed to the Greater London matters. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that it is extremely difficult to find where, in the Regulations, these general points occur.
Throughout the Regulations, Greater London is mentioned again and again but on careful examination one finds that by a combination of Regulations 4(b), 5(a) and 6 the appeal against a discretionary decision of the probation committee goes to the Secretary of State—I presume, the Home Secretary—in place of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I do not complain of that change. What I complain of is that the Regulations do not tell us, without an enormous amount of research, how that change is brought about. It is a general law change tucked into a specific Statutory Instrument.
The other general amendment is that the notional whole-time salaries are, in future, to be determined by reference to rules which the Secretary of State may make from time to time concerning the remuneration of probation staff. This comes into Regulation 5(b) in a very obscure way. In previous Regulations, the calculation of the notional whole-time salary was set out in the Regulations themselves and could, therefore, be seen by hon. Members on such an occasion as this. In future, however, by means of Regulation 5(b), calculation of the notional whole-time salary will be made by the Secretary of State in rules which will not come before the House.
I believe that he has power to make these rules by Statutory Instrument, but by that type of Instrument which does not ever come before the House. I would have been happier if the Regulations had not provided for that, and if we had gone on, as in previous Regulations, setting out the way in which this salary was calculated in the Regulations themselves. It should not be left to the Secretary of State to make these rules without bringing them before the House as they have been brought previously.
There are, therefore, those several points on which I think the hon. Gentleman ought to have offered some explanation to the House on bringing forward these Regulations. After all, they are brought before the House in draft. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to approve this draft so that these Regulations can become effective. The draft is unsatisfactory in at least those three complicated points which I have tried to describe.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I am sorry that in the course of administering his rather formidable attack the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) felt it necessary to rebuke me for not having told the House more about these Regulations.
I would have been happy to have done that, but my feeling was that most of the House was probably holding back its enthusiastic interest in this matter, and that if I had gone into a long disquisition about each of the paragraphs in the Regulations, whilst I might have earned the admiration of the hon. Gentleman, which is what I always want to do, I might not have earned popularity amongst other hon. Members.
I thought that it would be better to let the hon. Gentleman fire off his points, I would then know what he wanted me to answer, and I would do my best to answer them. I hope that I can deal with them both comprehensively and accurately, but if, on reading the record, I find that I am wrong, I shall get in touch with him.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) started with a good but easy point, for which I was grateful. He invited me to hold forth about the London Government Act. It is true that these Regulations are partly the result

of the substitution of the Greater London Council for the London County Council, and that is something which we have had to accept and we have to work, but the other change which is involved in these Regulations is the change in the administration of justice in London, which is something which this bit of the Government warmly welcomed when it came into force.
The integration of the magistrates' courts and the abolition of the direct control of the probation officers by the Home Office were things which resulted from the Aarvold Committee, which I as a back bencher accepted, and we are anxious to see them work.
Drawing on my experience of trying to amend legislation before, I think that I can also say that the Secretary of State means any Secretary of State, so any Secretary of State can act on behalf of another.
I think that I have dealt with the points made by the hon. Member for Crosby about the individual superannuation rights of existing staff. I said that they were not covered in these Regulations. They will be dealt with in regulations under Section 35 of the Administration of Justice Act, and will be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Graham Page: Will they come before the House on a negative Resolution or an affirmative one? Would not it have been better to bring them before the House at the same time as this draft?

Mr. MacColl: I do not carry the requirements of the London Government Act in my head. I am not sure whether it is positive or negative, but I shall find out and let the hon. Gentleman know.
I think that this is the most convenient way of dealing with this matter. It is the most convenient legislation under which it could be done, and it is essentially a matter to be dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Part-time probation officers in inner London never have been superannuable, and will not be under these Regulations. There is no change in the situation there.
The hon. Gentleman asked why my right hon. and learned Friend was


responsible for the expenses of the inner London probation committee. The answer is that they are not borne by the local authority but by the Receiver, and that is why they come to him.
I think that those are the main points that were raised. If I find that I have missed one, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman did not deal with my complaint about the Explanatory Note of the Regulations not giving any clue as to where the general amendments to the law came in.

Mr. MacColl: I am sorry about that, but I think that it is clear if one reads the Regulations. Even I found it very clear when I referred to them, but I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman was misled about that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Probation Officers and Clerks (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Norwood: I wish to raise this evening the subject of the economic development of Norfolk, for which I am one of the Members. I do so for a number of reasons, and to argue what many people in the county and I consider to be a strong case.
We have at the moment in this country a situation in which the development of the south-east of England has been deemed to be worthy of a Ministerial study, and which in its time will benefit from regional planning of one kind or another. My purpose is to advocate the claims of the county and the obvious suitability of Norfolk for planned economic development.
The county is sparsely populated. Indeed, it is one of the few areas remaining in England in which one can travel substantial distances between one town

and another. It is also characterised by comparatively low earnings. It has been impossible to obtain accurate or really useful information on this, but those who know the county, or even the city of Norwich, would hardly dispute that the earnings of the people in Norwich are well below the national average. It therefore has an immediate claim to further economic development.
Secondly, one of the features of the county is that industrial employment tends to be concentrated in a number of specialised industries. The classic example is the boot and shoe industry in Norwich, in which about 8,000 people are employed; an industry whose fortunes are tied very closely to the sale of women's and children's shoes in this country.
Other industries such as agricultural processing, and engineering to a larger extent than is often realised, provide employment, but agriculture, which has provided employment in the county, is a steadily declining industry from the point of view of providing work, and every year the number of people employed in this industry diminishes. This, in itself, could be a substantial argument for, to use a horrible word which appears in the papers, and frequently in the American Press, diversification—the introduction of different and new industries to the area. The county is also suitable for economic development. It is no great distance from the industrial centres of the Midlands, and it has a long coastline. It has a number of ports, some of which can and no doubt will be developed in the next few years. It is eminently suited for manufactures, which might be sold in the northern or western portions of Europe and which could be sent via Norfolk or, in some cases—although I hesitate to mention it—Suffolk ports to the Continent and to the Baltic countries.
In addition, the two natural large markets that exist in the country—in the Midlands, and in London and the South—are easily accessible. It is generally accepted in the county—certainly by the county council and the city fathers in Norwich—that greater industrial development is needed. There has been a substantial increase in employment in the city in the last 10 years, but characteristically the bulk of this increase has come from an increase in service trades rather than the industrial base.
It is also true—and this is a point which for many of us has a great deal of relevance, and gives rise to a number of constituency problems—that the general level of unemployment in the area of the Norfolk Exchange, for instance, is substantially above the national average. I imagine that that has always been so. What is much more significant to the life of the city is that the level of unemployment among men is well above the national average, although the level of unemployment among women tends to be somewhat below it.
I have been able to obtain figures for four years, and I have no reason to suppose that 1964 will not confirm these figures. In 1958, in the Norwich Employment Exchange area, which goes beyond the boundaries of the city and includes virtually the whole constituency of Central Norfolk, and even beyond, male unemployment was over 3 per cent. as against the national average of 2 per cent.; in 1960, it was 2½ per cent. as against the national average of under 2 per cent.; in 1962 it was 2¾ per cent. as against just over 2 per cent., and in 1963 it was nearly 3½ per cent. as against nearly 2½per cent. In each of these years male unemployment substantially exceeded the national average.
The picture is different for female unemployment. In 1958 it was one-half of 1 per cent. below the national average; in 1960 it was a quarter of 1 per cent. below the national average, and in 1962 and 1963 substantially the same as the national average.
Under the Local Employment Acts, 1960 and 1963, the Board of Trade, which is not represented here tonight, has powers to stimulate the movement of industry from one part of the country to another. Those powers are exercised by designating certain areas as development districts. The criterion for doing this is clearly laid down in the Acts, and it devolves upon the President of the Board of Trade to decide whether or no an area has an unemployment rate substantially above the national average. The burden of my case is that as well as taking into account the factor of unemployment we ought also to consider other factors concerning the economic development of the area.
At present a firm, whether it be small or large, which is considering moving

from the South-East or the Midlands because of the incentives held out under the terms of the Local Employment Acts, is likely to head towards the North-East or Scotland. Such a firm might have come to Norfolk but for those provisions, and they therefore tend to discriminate against its healthy development. If, under the regional planning arrangements, it is intended to persist with this form of inducement, attracting industry from one part of the country to another—and I do not quarrel with that; I can see the case for that—I can make out a strong claim for consideration to be given to Norfolk as well as to areas such as the North-East.
Not only do we have a higher than average male unemployment rate; we are also faced with the problem that average earnings are well below the national average, probably because we are tied to agricultural and seasonal trends. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page), who will probably seek to intervene in the debate, will have something to say about the effect of the population movement of this sort of wage-earner.
In matters of regional planning, the level of unemployment should certainly be taken into account when considering which areas require industrial development. But so should the level of unemployment of men and, for that matter, the level of earnings. If we consider one fact we ought to consider the others. Nor is it the opinion in the county, or in the city of Norwich, that Norfolk, and the city in particular, should be used as a sort of dumping ground for various discarded offices from London, if it happens to suit planners in London and the South-East to push them out of London. It is not to say that those offices are not welcomed, but if they are to be the only form of economic development with which Norfolk is to be graced in the next few years they will be inadequate. Opportunities ought to be provided for industrial employment. That is my case. More development and planned development are required.
To most of us it seems likely that the port facilities round the fringes of the county will be improved. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn will have something to say about that. Some improvement has already taken place. There


is a marked increase in trade done in the East Coast ports. This is neither a new thought nor an original one, but it is a fact. We would also hope that at some stage it would be possible to improve the transport facilities in the county. I assume that this will have the attention of the Department of Economic Affairs.
Norfolk has an inadequate road system, and the county is faced with the apparent extinction of the Norfolk railways, although some of us are delighted to see that the Suffolk line looks like being preserved, according to Dr. Beeching's new arrangements. Nevertheless, it rather looks as if only three major ports in the county will be connected to the railway system in the next ten years. King's Lynn may survive, and I suppose that Norwich is bound to survive, although some of us even have doubts about that. It is possible that Yarmouth will survive.

Mr. Anthony Fell: It had better.

Mr. Norwood: The hon. Member says that it had better. This is the first time in my life that I am prepared to agree with him—and it will probably be the last. I agree that it should. Whether or not it will is another matter—and whether a change of Government would improve its prospects of survival is still another.

Mr. Fell: It would.

Mr. Norwood: It would, would it? I am only sorry that the guarantee comes from an hon. Member who is unlikely to influence his party in this respect. There is great concern in the county about the withdrawal of freight facilities from local stations. Many people think that this heralds the complete closure of the railways. In some cases their suspicions and cynicism have all the appearance of being justified. I recognise that this is not a matter for my hon. Friend's Department—obviously it cannot be—but it is, of course, germane to the question of planning in Norfolk.
Having made these points, I hope that the Minister will feel that he is able to give a little comfort to us in Norfolk. I do not suppose, in the nature of things, that a great Government

Department can give much comfort to our county, but I hope that the Minister may be able to give some.
I thank the House for this opportunity to raise these matters, and I am glad to see present so many hon. Members who represent constituencies in the county, although they are not all members of my own party.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by the early start of this Adjournment debate to make a few points about the future of Norfolk. I support, on the whole, what has been said by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood). Without in any way wishing to sound pompous, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the manner in which he put his points. It was moderate and constructive.
I wish to refer to the question of the economic development of Norfolk. A lot has gone on in the past 14 years and we are now becoming more of a focal point in East Anglia in that now there is a university at Norwich. In one way that makes Norfolk a little more insular, but also more self-supporting and, I hope, more proud of ourselves in that we are able, as it were, to educate young people of East Anglia to all stages. I am sure that every hon. Member would wish the University of East Anglia the best possible success.
It would be wrong not to recognise the enormous development which has gone on over the past few years. When I first became the Member of Parliament for Great Yarmouth there was still tremendous talk and worry about unemployment and the situation which had obtained before the war. For many years there was a serious unemployment situation in Yarmouth. There have, however, been extraordinary strides made since then which is all the more remarkable in view of the fact that Yarmouth was a town which, during the latter part of the year and over the Christmas period, had always depended on the great fishing fleets to provide employment.
A crowd of drifters used to come down from Scotland and the local drifters were numerous at that time. There were


thousands of people to whom the drifters gave work. Over the past 10 years these drifters have almost completely disappeared. When I first went to the area there were about 500 drifters there in the fishing season, but during this last season the number did not reach 50. Despite that, the employment situation has become progressively better although there has been a slight rise in population. There may have been a small increase in unemployment in one year, but progressively, conditions have improved all through the years.
I am delighted to see this happening, particularly in a town which in the past has been hard hit. The reason for improvement is largely that there has been a balance built up between Great Yarmouth as a seaside resort and Great Yarmouth as an industrial town. Such a balance is always difficult to achieve because of the difficulty in getting the labour necessary during the summer seasonal months. To have an economic future a good transport system is a basic requirement. I do not propose to attempt to dot any "i's" for the hon. Member for Norwich, South, but I wish to say something about transport in the county Borough of Great Yarmouth.
I know that everyone has transport problems, and it may sound a little insular to mention one's own, but it is necessary to do so. I hope that the Government, bearing in mind their great promises about modernising Britain, will not forget Great Yarmouth when it comes to modernising the transport of East Anglia and eastern England. At Great Yarmouth we have only one bridge running from north to south over the river and if that should be damaged, the consequences would be catastrophic. The only day a badly navigated ship ran into the bridge. Fortunately, it struck a great bastion and not the bridge itself. Had it done so, the consequences would have been very serious.
For the benefit of those who are not aware of it, may I say that Great Yarmouth is divided into two halves. There is Yarmouth on one side of the river and Gorleston on the other side. Many people who work in factories in Great Yarmouth come from Gorleston and the majority of them use the bridge. It will be essential eventually for Great Yarmouth to have a second means of crossing the river to link more closely

the most industrialised area of Great Yarmouth with Gorleston, just across the river from South Denes.
We hope to get some financial support from the Government for the construction of a crossing and we shall have to consider whether there must be some form of toll to help to raise the money to pay for the undertaking. If we wish to do that we should have to promote a Bill in this House. No doubt the Government, who laid so much emphasis before the General Election on the necessity to modernise Britain, will provide facilities and contribute to the cost of another bridge for Great Yarmouth.
I mention these things so that the Government may have due warning that we shall he coming to them and we shall put our case gently, firmly but insistently. We shall not come for a few months, but when we do I warn the Government that the ancient borough of Great Yarmouth will expect help in its efforts to modernise this part of Britain in the way I have mentioned.
I hope that we shall find that the Government will concentrate on the things that are important and one of them is the economic future of this part of the world. There is a matter which is coming up and which will cause the Government a certain amount of worry. That body is the Boundary Commission and what the Commission has reported is most important to the future of the county. As I understand—I do not want to quote people where I am not quite sure of their opinions—the situation as far as Yarmouth is concerned is that the Boundary Commission recommended, in its original recommendation, although the final ones are yet to come, that Great Yarmouth should lose its county borough status.
This is an interesting matter. We have this great body, the Boundary Commission, coming up to Yarmouth and spending half a day there talking to one or two officials and that is about all. Then it went away and thought about it and spent, I think, another half a day there and had some sort of inquiry. But the most interesting thing of all is that the only people I can discover who want Great Yarmouth to lose its county borough status is the Boundary Commission.
I do not want to speak for the Norfolk County Council, of course, but so far as I can discover this is not a move which is particularly welcomed by the Norfolk County Council. That is sensible of it, because of the problems of a borough like Great Yarmouth, with its enormous summer specialised industry of holiday-making, which affects the police and the general running of the town. Yarmouth has run itself well for many hundreds of years and it would be the greatest mistake—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) laughs at this, but it runs itself. I am only afraid at the moment of one or two problems, which I must not go into—

Mr. Norwood: I bet you are.

Mr. Fell: The hon. Member laughs. Therefore, I must tell him what I am afraid of. I am a little afraid of one or two plans which the local authority has. To be more specific, I am most afraid of its plan for some form of what it calls comprehensive education. This is very important for the economic development of Norfolk, for if our youngsters are to be well educated the chances of a good economic future for our town are that much greater
I am sure that the hon. Member agrees with that. Whether one is pro-or anti-comprehensive education, there is one thing which I would have thought that everybody would be against and that is a bad system of comprehensive education or a "cock-up" system of comprehensive education. That is precisely what the local authority has decided to do in Great Yarmouth. I must leave that point, I must not go on much longer, because hon. Members on both sides want to say something about this.
I only want to make one other point. The hon. Member for Norwich, South talked about the ports in Norfolk, quite rightly. I agree with him. There is tremendous possibility for the development of trade across the North Sea, as trade between Britain and Europe grows. I am not going to mention the Common Market here.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Why not?

Mr. Fell: As trade grows, obviously this will develop tremendously and is

developing tremendously in Yarmouth. Despite the enormous amount of work and money which has been spent on the harbour which is now in very good condition, it is now a solvent port. It certainly was not a solvent port when I went there, though I claim no credit for that. Trade is increasing now and it can increase a good deal more. I hope that the new ports authority will not just completely concentrate on the great ports such as the Port of London and Bristol and Liverpool, but will also do what it can to assist the smaller ports like Great Yarmouth, King's Lynn—

Mr. Norwood: There was one point in my speech which I perhaps did not explain and with which I am sure the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) will agree—that many of us think that there is a strong case for building a road from the Midlands area to Lynn and across the north of the county and down the coastal fringe. That, I think, would certainly lead to what is almost inevitable, an improvement in the trade of the North Coast ports, for various reasons, one of which is that they are efficient.

Mr. Fell: I agree with the hon. Member. Indeed, it would help Great Yarmouth, because our train service is not all that good to the Midlands. Many people who come to Norfolk for their holidays come from the Midlands. This would be of the greatest value to Great Yarmouth and would help the ports to do more trade than they are now doing.
I have been diverted, but I end by saying that here is a great county and a most beautiful county which many people who have not been there seem surprised about. That is why we had the great Norwich School of Painting because of the beauty of Norfolk. It is the vegetable garden of Britain. This is one of the things which is bringing more economic prosperity certainly to my part of Norfolk in that we have vast food-preparaing establishments, Bird's Eye, and so on, increasing in size all the time in that area. I hope that the Government will do everything they can to help that area in its economic growth. I hope that they will fulfil all their grand promises of modernising Britain. I hope that in all their grand promises, East Anglia will not be the lowest in the list in their plans.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich, South for raising this matter.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Derek Page: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) spoke of the need for more adequate criteria in deciding the needs of areas for economic assistance. I would like to reinforce his arguments. It is quite ludicrous that we should not have available the figures of earnings. It is obvious to those of us who live in Norfolk that earnings there are very much lower on average than in areas which are receiving assistance under the Local Employment Acts, such as the North-East. This is like Robin Hood robbing the poor to give to the rich. Our taxes go to finance economic assistance, the same as anyone else's. I would urge that the figures of earnings which we have requested repeatedly should be made available. I do not believe that it is administratively impossible to do this.
One other criterion which should be borne in mind is migration. The figures for unemployment in the King's Lynn area are not above the national average. One of the reasons for this is that we lose so many people. The one measure which we have for this is a survey which was done some time ago, regarding the loss of young people from the town. It was found that of those youngsters in Lynn who became 21, 60 per cent. had left by the time they were 25. This certainly helps to cut down the level of unemployment, but it is a most undesirable development. There have never been sufficient opportunities for them. I would urge that in deciding what form economic help should take and how I.D.C.s should be distributed, these factors should be taken into account. The Local Employment Acts are based on far too narrow criteria.
The biggest industry we have is agriculture and, of course, horticulture, and it is likely to remain so. Many of us feel that the productive capacity which we have is not used as fully as it could be used. Time and again we see foreign produce coming into this country and taking far too large a proportion of our own market which our own industry could supply. It was recently calculated that about £250 million of the foodstuffs which

we import could be provided by our own industry. To me, it makes no sense to neglect our own economic capacity purely for the benefit of foreign exporters.
Industry in West Norfolk is tending to gather around the port of King's Lynn, and this is understandable when people realise the cheapness of the facilities, particularly compared with the big ports such as London, and the efficient service which Lynn offers. This is a great credit to management and workers in the port. We have the happiest relations there, and all the exporters who have gone to Lynn have been delighted with the service which they have received. I hope that the Minister will make it his business to make known to industry, particularly in the Midlands and in the London conurbation, especially the northern end of the conurbation, the facilities which are available to them in ports such as King's Lynn.
The trade through Lynn has increased. Last year we handled about 620,000 tons throughput, which was an increase of 16 per cent. on the year before. The capacity to handle ships is a little limited. We can take only up to about 1,700 tons. There is a scheme, however, for approval now, before the Ministry of Agriculture, oddly enough, to straighten the channel, and if this is approved it will increase the tonnage which we can take up to about 3,000 tons. This is of very great importance. It will enable us to bring in iron ore and many other commodities. I urge that approval be given for this scheme with the minimum of delay. We have work to get on with.
Moreover, why stop there? It would be well worth while investigating the advisability of much greater improvements to the approaches to King's Lynn. If we could get 8,000-tonners into the port we could handle them easily, and we could then take produce from all over the Commonwealth, and we could certainly double the trade going through Lynn if the approaches were made capable of taking 8,000-tonners.

Mr. Fell: Does not the hon. Member agree that one of the most important reasons for getting a move on with this sort of development is that it would take some of the congestion out of the ports which at present cannot handle the traffic?

Mr. Page: I agree with the hon. Member. It is not only in the interests of Norfolk and Lynn but in the interests of the economy of the country.
I imagine that the cost utility of £1 million invested in Yarmouth or Lynn would be very much better than the cost utility of £1 million invested in London. That is the sort of approach we need from a Ministry of Economic Affairs.
If we are to see the proper utilisation of the facilities which ports such as Lynn offer, we need the development of the infrastructure, particularly the development of means of communication, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South has already indicated. We have the most dreadful traffic jams at times around King's Lynn. There has been the start of a by-pass. Half of it is under construction. But we still get traffic jams five to six miles long along the road from Sutton Bridge, and this will not be cleared by the part of the by-pass now being constructed. For the future of the port and for the future of the holiday trade throughout East Anglia, it is essential that this blockage around King's Lynn be cleared.
At the moment we do not even know the time-table or the order of priority to be given to the completion of this bypass. I urge most sincerely that an investigation be carried out into the order of priority to be given to the completion of this by-pass. I know that we all want by-passes and that we cannot have them overnight, but at least let us set the order of priority to be given to this most important work.
We have heard a plea for an east-west motorway. This is plainly necessary, particularly if we are to make the facilities of the East Coast ports available to Midlands traffic. I feel that there is a much better case for an east-west motorway running up through the Lynn area than wasting miles of its length going through Bury St. Edmunds. Plainly, even if the motorway, when we finally get it, runs further south, spurs must be taken off it to these important ports such as King's Lynn. One other motorway which I should like to see is from London into Norfolk. We have heard vague talk about motorways to go into Essex, but motorways must not finish there; they must go into Norfolk if we are to drain some

of the congestion away from the London conurbation.
I come to the railways. My goodness! This is a frightful position. One cannot understand the apparent planning of the railway in isolation without consideration of what Norfolk will be like in 10 years' time. Lynn has overspill coming from London, and yet one of the major railways—Lynn to Dereham—is very likely to be cut. This must not be allowed to happen. I implore the Government to consider most carefully before allowing any of these important rail links to be cut and to remember that Norfolk 10 years from now should be a very different place from that which it is at present—and that it will justify the improvement of railways and not the shutting of railways.
One benefit which we hope to get from the Ministry of Economic Affairs is co-ordination. I will tell the House briefly of a case which came to my notice today of a very important firm seeking to expand from London to King's Lynn. The firm thought that everything had been fixed and finalised, but at the last minute the Ministry of Agriculture put in an objection. This is a very important firm for King's Lynn. It makes various plastics, and it will employ hundreds of people. The firm is exporting 40 per cent. of its production and expects to continue to do so. This is doing Britain's job, not just Norfolk's job.
It is plainly against the national interest that firms such as these, which are progressive and expanding, should be crippled by undue hold-ups and unnecessary delays in planning. I urge the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to do everything he can to unsnarl these blocks in planning. If he will do so he will make a great contribution to the economic development of Norfolk, and I can assure him that Norfolk will repay him a hundredfold.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I too, welcome this debate initiated by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) and the opportunity to take part in it, and I do not dissent from much that he said. I agree with a good deal of it, but I feel that his implied comparison between Norfolk and the North-East was very overdrawn. It is quite true that earnings in Norfolk are low. This


is for a variety of reasons. It is partly because the National Union of Agricultural Workers is too low in the scale of the T.U.C., and therefore if it negotiated a rise in wages, other wages have to go up, too. This is one of the main reasons for keeping wages down. But it is also true that, on the whole, costs are also lower than they are elsewhere.

Mr. Norwood: On mature consideration the hon. Member may come to the conclusion that it is hardly the fault of the National Union of Agricultural Workers that agricultural wages, either in Norfolk or elsewhere in the country, are low. I understand that they would be only too happy for them to be raised, but that there are various obstructions in their way.

Mr. Gilmour: I did not say that it was its fault. I said that it was partly due to the T.U.C., over which the National Union of Agricultural Workers does not have control, not giving the union the priority which I believe it should have.

Mr. Norwood: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the T.U.C. took no part in the negotiations over wages and that it has no control over its constituent unions? Why, therefore, place the blame there?

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my month, particularly if I did not say them. I did not blame the union. I merely suggested that the T.U.C. gave the union rather lower priority than it deserved. The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South said that Norfolk was sparsely populated. This is perfectly true and anyone travelling by train from Suffolk to Norfolk will notice the difference between the two places. This is because Norfolk is the primary agricultural county of England. It is not surprising that it should be sparsely populated. In such an area one expects to see large tracts of agricultural land. While we must welcome further economic development in Norfolk, that must not happen at the expense of Norfolk's primary industry. It is highly unfortunate, therefore, that the first measures which the Government took on coming to office hit Norfolk's primary industry.

Mr. Cyril Bence: How?

Mr. Gilmour: The Bank Rate, petrol tax and the import surcharge all had a very bad effect on the horticultural industry.

Mr. Bence: Mr. Benceindicated dissent.

Mr. Gilmour: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head in disagreement because I have with me a lot of facts and figures to prove I am right, figures which I obtained from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a month or two ago. I can assure the House that considerable sums were added to the cost of production in Norfolk and other horticultural areas as a result of those Government measures. This is on the record and hon. Members opposite can look up the details.

Mr. Fell: To support my hon. Friend in his argument, it may interest the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) to know that only last week 50 people were put out of work, directly because of the surcharge, in my constituency.

Mr. Gilmour: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The costs of horticultural production have increased by between 7½ per cent. and 10 per cent. since the Government took office. This has been serious for Norfolk. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East represents a Scottish constituency and may not take this subject seriously. I assure him that the people of Norfolk take it extremely seriously and these increases are greatly to be deplored. Any measures to help Norfolk economically must begin with taking a good look at the horticultural industry and helping it in the coming Price Review.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend ask for help from the Government, but is he aware that horticultural products are not included in the Price Review? I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government should help. They should begin to honour the promises which they made not long ago.

Mr. Gilmour: That is true, but the Government could, nevertheless, help the farmers of Norfolk in the Price Review


and there has recently been a deputation from the N.F.U. to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the question of horticulture. It is earnestly to be hoped that this will result in early and speedy action by the Government.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South was a tiny bit snooty about offices in Norwich. It may be that there are some offices which are undesirable, but, after all, Norwich is the headquarters of the Norwich Union, which has a lengthy tradition of providing office work there. I should have thought that what the hon. Member described was a reasonable and proper thing to happen and that there should be office development in Norwich.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), dealing with the question of boundaries, thought that the only people he knew who were in favour of abolishing Great Yarmouth as a county borough was the Boundary Commission. I can inform him why. It is because the Boundary Commissioners are intent on denuding Norfolk of some of its most populous and richest areas—which happen, by coincidence, to be in my constituency—and give them to the city of Norwich. To compensate Norfolk for this, it appears to have thought that Yarmouth should be "pinched" and given to Norfolk.

Mr. Fell: That is a bit crooked.

Mr. Gilmour: It may be so, but I put it to the Minister that these proposals are wrong and that even if they were right they would represent a serious hindrance to the future economic development of Norfolk. Uncertainty of this type is damaging. This sort of quasi war between the city of Norwich and the county of Norfolk is out of date, ridiculous and should be brought to an end. These proposals should be scrapped.
If Norfolk is to expand economically, help must first be given to the agricultural and horticultural industries. I agree that there should be other economic development, too, but it is important that this should not take place on good agricultural land. There is a certain amount of land in Norfolk which is not classed as really good agricultural land and this should be chosen by the Government for any future factory or similar building. They

should not merely allow cities to spread out, particularly when the land sought to be used is extremely good for agricultural purposes. I agree, therefore, that while there must be economic development in Norfolk, it must be carried out with the greatest possible discrimination.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. James Tinn: I would not ordinarily dream of intervening in an adjournment debate concerned with the affairs of Norfolk. Since the House disposed of its earlier business with such expedition, hon. Members who represent constituencies outside the area with which the Adjournment is concerned have an opportunity of expressing some views, and I am grateful for this chance to make a few comments.
As an hon. Member who represents a north-eastern constituency, I have found this a constructive and friendly debate so far. It has been particularly interesting because I have found myself making the comparison between our respective problems. They are similar in impact on our constituents, similar in their urgency and importance, yet different in some respects. I do not intend to use this opportunity, hon. Members will be relieved to hear, to press the claims of my constituency, which the Minister is already well acquainted with, since he represents an adjacent constituency.
The area I represent suffers to some extent from the run-down of the ironstone mines, and I can, in this respect, contrast my area with the picture presented by hon. Members who represent East Anglian constituencies of that part of the country. It would seem to me, from what has been said, that East Anglia is not suffering from a contraction of industry but rather from a long-term malady. That is partly due to the low level of wages to which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) referred.
I want to expand a little on that point, because it may well be that this low level of agricultural wages in an area predominantly dependent on agriculture—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that agricultural wages are settled by a body called the Agricultural Wages Board, which is completely independent and


has nothing to do with the Government of the day. It hears evidence from all sides—from the N.F.U., the farmers' representatives, the agricultural workers' representatives—and decides in a completely independent way whether there should be a rise in wages and, if so, what it should be.

Mr. Tinn: I was not seeking to apportion blame but suggesting that there may be a long-term depressive effect exerted by the dependence of an area on one industry in which, whatever may be the reason, the wages tend to be at an unusually low level, and below the national average, because it is quite clear that in such an area the demand for the whole range of goods and services will tend to be affected. The opportunities for business and commerce generally are reduced, and that is reflected in the gradual movement of younger people from the area. They move from it because they do not see any opportunities there.
That is the chronic situation confronting an area that has limited industrial opportunities, and it is a state of things from which my constituency has certainly suffered, though I am confident that it is one that my hon. Friend and the Ministry will spare no effort to ameliorate.
I see a hopeful sign in the current exploration for oil in the North Sea. Millions of pounds are being invested in what is an admitted gamble. It is a venture in which my constituency is interested, and one in which East Anglia most certainly has an interest, too. This possibility, we can rate it no higher, of a new and revolutionary factor entering into the present situation is an added reason why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, when considering proposals for railway closures and developments, should be fully conscious of the possibility of a completely new and unexpected development that might upset the calculations on which decisions have hitherto been based.
My right hon. Friend has a heavy responsibility in trying to co-ordinate Government policy on the transport, housing, location of industry and education fronts—all the fronts on which this problem of regional unemployment can be tackled. Representing, as I do, a constituency and coming from a region that has similar problems, I am confident

of my right hon. Friend's capacity and ability vigorously to cope with the situation.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: When the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) rose, I thought that he must be about to deliver an attack on his hon. Friend, because some of us, including the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), well remember the tremendous efforts made by hon. Members on the Opposition side in the last Parliament to get more help for the North-East, the North-West, Central Scotland and the development districts; and the wrath with which they greeted any industrial development certificate that was granted in any other part of the country.
What we have to remember when discussing this problem is that if we are to take into consideration other factors in coming to a determination on what would be a development district, the whole pattern of the development districts will be changed, and the weight of emphasis that we can put on any one area will be less.
If the hon. Members for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) and King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) want low earnings to be taken into consideration in assessing development areas in future, they must realise that that would to some degree take away from the present development districts the pressure that there is to send industry to them. I have always believed that the most important point about a development district is that of high unemployment. It must be remembered that 14 per cent. of Britain is covered by development districts and that great efforts have been made to channel industry to those areas.
Much as I would like to see more industry coming to Norfolk and to East Anglia generally, I must accept and admit that the needs of the North-East, the North-West and Central Scotland are much greater. I do not believe that anyone in Norfolk or Suffolk, however much he might like to see more industry come there, would deny that more industry must go to the under-developed areas of the North-East and the North-West, which have very much more serious problems than we have.
After all, our main problem—it is a serious one in a way—is that the mechanisation of agriculture has meant that many fewer men are employed on farms. Therefore, we have had a surplus of labour. But we do not have the problem of the dying industries or the very old heavy industries, which have had an extremely tough time in the last few years and which will have an even tougher time in some respects in the next few years. So, much as I would like to see changes made in the method of assessing development districts, I could not, either on economic or on social grounds, admit that at this stage it would be right.
I notice that another Member representing a Scottish constituency, namely, the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), has come into the Chamber. It is a great pleasure to Members representing East Anglia to feel that we have a chance of doing what the Scots used to do almost interminably in the last Parliament. We can now feel that we can get our own back a little by putting forward the interests of our own area. Therefore, I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, South on securing this debate tonight and on managing to persuade the Minister of Technology to make such a dull and uninteresting speech, earlier this afternoon, that no one wanted to continue that debate for very long. At any rate, we have got through the Orders of the Day quickly and we are very grateful for this chance of discussing our problems.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the problem of low earnings. It is true that the earnings in East Anglia are lower than they are in some places and are, on the whole, lower than the national average. On the other hand, expenses are lower. Undoubtedly, it is cheaper to live in East Anglia than it is to live, for example, in the London area or the Midlands. If we are to have higher earnings, we must have fuller employment and more industries. We must also be prepared to pay the agricultural worker more.
I have not noticed a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of townsfolk to pay more for their food, which is the natural consequence of paying the agricultural worker more. I have always

stressed to my constituents that higher prices for food can be justified now if it means that those who produce the food receive a higher return, and by "food" in this context I mean food whether it is from the sea in the form of fish or from the land in the form of produce.

Mr. Tinn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the generosity with which he said that the problems of Scotland, the North-East and Wales are greater in scale than those confronting Norfolk. We all take that point. I sought in my speech to show that those of us from these areas are as conscious of the needs of other areas as are hon. Members who come from Norfolk. We, for our part, would certainly make no complaint at any act of the Government to ameliorate them. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about the attitude of townspeople to farm wages and farm prices, I can assure him that most of us would be willing to pay slightly higher prices for food—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. An intervention is only for the purpose of clarification. The hon. Gentleman has already exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Prior: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I think that one of the points which he would have made if he had been allowed to continue is that the price of food after it leaves the farm gate has gone up in recent years.
This brings me to another important point, which is the enormous effect that the food-processing industry has had on the economy of East Anglia. We have established round the coast and inland in Norfolk and Suffolk highly efficient food-processing industries, such as Bird's Eye, Beechams, the Ross Group, and one or two others, including the Co-operative Society, and I declare an interest in that I grow a lot of crops myself for the Co-operative Society. The public nowadays like to have their food in suitably packed and easily prepared form and a large part of the increase in the cost of food in recent years has come on the packaging and presentation side. This means a great deal to East Anglia, because these industries which are drawing their labour from the area also draw their raw materials there. This has had an immense effect on our prosperity.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South was worried about too many offices being established in Norwich. We already have the Norwich Union and now we are to have the. Stationery Office. I use the word "we" because although I do not represent Norwich I was born and bred there and have a soft spot for it. I welcome the coming of extra offices to Norwich because, as some hon. Members have pointed out, there is a certain amount of emigration from East Anglia of young people, the majority of whom are highly trained, the grammar school boys, and the skilled men, including the professions.
If we had more offices of as high a calibre as possible there these people would remain in the area. We would welcome more offices. Norwich is now a very prosperous town. It is developing a new university. There is only one thing wrong with Norwich, and that is that it has two Labour Members of Parliament and has had a Labour majority on the council for a very long while.
In our desire to get more industry into the area we must remember that Norfolk is one of the most important agricultural counties and is also an important holiday county. We are apt to forget the importance of the Norfolk Broads to our economy. The Nature Conservancy Board recently issued a publication, of which I have not seen the details, which goes some way towards encouraging the opening up of more rivers and broads in the Norfolk area. This is a development which we should like to see encouraged, bringing, as it would, more development in ship and boat building as well.
Railways and roads have been mentioned. These two have vital consequences for East Anglia. I support everything that has been said on both sides of the House on these subjects. The East Suffolk line is the main line serving both Lowestoft and Yarmouth, via Ipswich. In the past this line carried more traffic than did the Norwich line and, therefore, there is a strong case that if one of the lines is to be closed it should be the Norwich line.

Mr. Norwood: Does the hon. Gentle-man agree when I suggest that neither line should be closed?

Mr. Prior: I was not referring to that at the moment. If the Labour

Government intend to honour their election pledges, they will keep both lines open. My opponent, in his election address, said that the Labour Government would keep open the East Suffolk line. I do not think that he had a right to say any such thing in his election address, but that did not stop him saying it, and I expect the Government to honour that pledge. If they do not, the people of East Anglia will want to know why.

Mr. Norwood: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it a bit hard on the Government, since he did not allow the gentleman in question to get here?

Mr. Prior: Whether the gentleman got here or not has nothing to do with it. This was a pledge given on behalf of the Labour Government, and I expect it to be honoured.

Mr. Bence: At the election which I fought in 1959 the Prime Minister came to Glasgow and, at a big meeting in a cinema there, gave the pledge that, if my opponent was returned and a Conservative Government got in, two new "Queens" would be built on the Clyde. They were never built. That was a broken promise.

Mr. Prior: I do not wish to pursue this too far. We passed an Act for the building of one new "Queen". We honoured our promise. If, after that, the company refused to go ahead with the ship, that is another matter. We honoured our election pledge to the full, and it was money granted on loan to the shipbuilding industry which enabled the latest ship to be built.
We honoured our pledge, and I expect the Labour Government to do the same for my railway line. I hate to think what will happen to them in East Anglia if they do not. They have not much support there now, and they will have none at all if they do not honour it. However, we are getting some way away from the problems of Norfolk.

Mr. Bence: Hear, hear.

Mr. Prior: Its all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say "Hear, hear", but he led me off the path.
There is a problem in Norfolk. We need more industry, in particular light industry. I have already mentioned food


processing, but, although this industry is expanding, the amount of labour which it employs nowadays is rather small. It is a very efficient productive industry which does not employ a lot of labour. Another great industry which has developed well is printing. If printing is to expand, as it must, over the next few years, it would be a very suitable industry to come our way.
Light engineering and plastics have been mentioned in this connection by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Woodworking would be a particularly suitable industry because we are near the Scandinavian ports. Importers could bring their timber in through Yarmouth, Lowestoft, or King's Lynn, and woodworking industries would be most suitable for our part of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) said that Norfolk was one of the most beautiful counties in England. Representing a Suffolk constituency, but having been born in Norfolk, I can support him in that. We want to see greater development. We want the excellent people who are born and brought up in Norfolk to be given a higher standard of living and a chance to earn more money. This is very important, but we do not want to see our area spoilt by too much development and development of the wrong sort. The balance must be kept.
The Britain of the future cannot be just one mass of industry. As we get richer as a country it will be all the more important to ensure that there are areas where a proper balance between countryside and town is kept. Norwich, part of which the hon. Gentleman is so lucky to represent, is a very beautiful city, a city admirably suited to absorb more industry and, at the same time, to enable people who come there to enjoy a full and cultural life. With its new university, its cathedral and its great architectural interest, it is indeed, as the Norwich Union so rightly says, a fine city.
In supporting what has been said by the hon. Member for Norwich, South, I hope that the Government will realise that we are not trying to be greedy, or to take away from the North-East, the North-West, Central Scotland, or the South-West what they should have. What

we are asking for is a greater share of the country's increasing industry and expansion. We hope that our comments will not fall on stony ground. We realise the difficulties, but we look to the Joint Under-Secretary of State to do what he can to help us improve the situation.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: On several occasions, hon. Members opposite, in expressing gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood), have remarked how fortunate he is to represent Norwich. After listening to him, it struck me that Norwich is fortunate in being represented by him. We can certainly convey to the city that every hon. Member who has listened to the debate appreciates how fortunate and wise the people of Norwich were in returning him to this House.
We are now engaged in trying to disperse some of our population out of the over-crowded area of London and the Midlands. I am in favour of moving some people out of this area into Norfolk. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) asked that some of them should go to the North-East, but no hon. Member so far has mentioned Scotland. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) referred to the fact that when we were in opposition we were always pressing the then Government to have more expansion in Scotland. In the last few months, there has been greater justification than ever before for the potential of Scotland to be exploited by sending more industry there.
In this area we hear complaints of rising prices because of the imports surcharge. We have not had those rises in Scotland. Scottish distributors and manufacturers have overcome the difficulty by efficiency and organisation. Scotland is, therefore, eminently suitable for more industry.

Mr. Prior: If the Scottish distributors have overcome the surcharge, they must have been making exorbitant profits before.

Mr. Bence: I am speaking mainly about food. The surcharge was not imposed upon food. Scottish distributors did not put the surcharge on food. Sainsbury's has not done so in London, and no one has done it in Scotland. That is all the more reason why we should divert more industry and people to Scotland. The


people already there are efficient, but there are still 74,000 unemployed although this figure is much less than it was 12 months ago.
We are being successful on the Clyde. At last we have a Government who have decided to implement the North Atlantic Shipping Act, 1961. We now have extra work on the Clyde because of it, thanks to my right hon. Friends. We also have several projects in the form of new towns.

Mr. Prior: Is the hon. Gentleman being quite fair in saying that the Government have implemented the Act?

Mr. Bence: I did not say that.

Mr. Prior: Will he clarify what he did say?

Mr. Bence: I said that the Government have honoured it. The Act was introduced in the last Parliament. The Prime Minister of the day said in Glasgow in 1959 that two new Cunarders would be built on the Clyde. I wrote to him about it and he replied that if the Conservatives were returned the two liners would be built. The Conservatives were returned but the liners were not built. Now we have been returned and a Cunarder is to be built on the Clyde. That is a fact. All these sophisticated, political arguments dc not alter the facts.

Mr. Prior: Mr. Prior rose—

Mr. Bence: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman. The point is perfectly clear. I know that the politicians can move it around, but that is the fact, and the Scots do not and will not forget it.
When the next election comes another four seats will go from the Conservatives to Labour because Labour is fulfilling its pledges in Scotland. It will continue to do so by increasing the movement of industrial enterprise into Scotland, as I am sure it will do in Norwich and other areas. I hope that when the expansion takes place in the South-West the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) will give credit to the Government for the impetus which they will have added to the South-West, which never happened in the last Parliament.
We have the new towns of Cumbernauld, which is in my constituency, Glenrothes, East Kilbride and Livingston. If

they are to attract varied industry and to have a diversified pattern of industry, they cannot draw it from within Scotland. It must come from America, the Midlands, London, and so on. We cannot draw it from Glasgow. We have overspill agreements with Glasgow, but we cannot get industry from Glasgow because it is short of industry itself. We must draw it from the South.

Mr. Prior: I always understood that one of the disappointing things about Scotland, following the setting up of the Rootes and B.M.C. motor car plants there, was that it failed to attract the subsidiary industries which go with the motor car manufacturing industry. Is there not plenty of scope for getting more subsidiary motor car industries in Scotland?

Mr. Bence: We were handicapped for many years because no sheet steel was being rolled in Scotland. There was plenty of plate steel being rolled for ships, but no motor car sheet steel or sheet steel which is used in the domestic hardware industry and what are called consumer durable industries. It was years before the previous Administration could convince Messrs. Colvilles that a strip mill would be a useful addition to the economy of Scotland. The considerable pressure exerted by the Labour Opposition in the House at last convinced the Government and Colvilles that this strip mill should be put down. It has been in operation for only a few years and it takes time to build it up.
But what we need in Scotland is another motor car plant. Rootes has only one model. It is producing another model called the Chamois, but it is very much the same as the other one. We need a larger output of motor cars and greater use of sheet steel in the manufacture of refrigerators and domestic products. If we can get some other diversified industries using sheet steel, we shall create in Scotland and the North a centre from which the subsidiary industries can draw their orders.
The present motor car output from Rootes and Bathgate is not sufficient to warrant the establishment of major feeder industries, but they will come. They are looking to the future because they know very well that in the United


Kingdom Scotland has the greatest potential to restore the prosperity of this country. Everybody is beginning to realise that. Industrialists in many parts of the world are looking to Scotland for the great revival of Great Britain.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the north-east of England will also contribute to the prosperity of this country?

Mr. J. B. Symonds: Will my hon. Friend also include Cumberland, because it is very near to Scotland, and I know that my hon. Friend loves the Lake District?

Mr. Ted Fletcher: There are more Members here who represent constituencies in the North-East than there are from Norfolk or Scotland.

Mr. Bence: The House will appreciate that I have at heart the best interests of all the areas of the country which my hon. Friends represent, but I represent a Scottish constituency, East Dunbartonshire, which is part of west Scotland. It is my duty to ask the Minister to give Scotland the same consideration which I know he will give to the constituencies of my hon. Friends. I know that he will give them ample consideration.
I plead finally that my hon. Friend will give the same consideration to Scotland, because there we have the skill, the labour force and plenty of land, and if the Labour Government remain in power for ten years they will have the confidence and the faith of the people of Scotland.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: It has been encouraging to see so many hon. Members opposite present and to hear that so many of them come from the North-East and from Scotland. One cannot help wondering what time their trains go and whether that is the reason why they are here. One remembers that upon similar occasions in the last Parliament, right hon. and hon. Members opposite representing Scotland and the North-East were also very much present.
I hope that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood), who

initiated this debate and who seems anxious still to leap into it, will be gratified by the attention that his subject has aroused.

Mr. Norwood: I am gratified at the interest that the problems of Norfolk have attracted on this side, where I count my hon. Friends too numerous to mention. On the hon. Gentleman's side, however, there are only three.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sorry that the hon. Member had to intervene in that way. He knows full well that there have already been two speeches from Norfolk Members on this side—

Mr. Norwood: Mr. Norwood rose—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Member has had quite enough to say for the moment.
I quite understand the reason for bringing forward the subject of this Adjournment debate tonight and I should like to make a comparison with what has happened in East Anglia and Norfolk and to divert the attention of the House for a moment to the South-West, because our problems are comparable. We are equally an agricultural area and we have the same sort of problems.
I realise that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs has come here armed to the teeth to reply to the debate about Norfolk and East Anglia and has neither the facts nor the figures, nor, indeed, the intention of replying to any debate on Scotland, the North-East or the South-West. I understand this because it was not long ago that I was in the same position as the hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, I hope that my remarks tonight will be borne in mind. I do not intend to be particularly controversial.
I am glad that the Joint Under-Secretary came down to my part of the world on a visit last Monday. I hope that he enjoyed his visit and that it was of use to him. I am sure that it was of use to the people in the South-West and particularly those in Cornwall whom he saw.
If I may draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to one small unfortunate fact, I received a letter yesterday from the


chairman of the county council regretting bitterly that members of the Press were not allowed in to the meeting in Truro addressed by the hon. Gentleman, at which there was free and forthright discussion with county council representatives. A prepared Press statement was issued afterwards, and the hon. Gentleman saw the Press at a conference later, but the Press were not allowed in at the meeting to hear the free exchange of views. I apologise for not being present myself, but I had to be here in the House.

The Joint Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): I learned after the event that the Press were not present. I should make it clear that they were not excluded by any wish of mine.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that. I hope that on any future occasion when he or any of his right hon. or hon. Friends come again, as I hope they will, to the South-West to see our problems there—because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, he has not solved them yet—they will have consultations with the council beforehand about arrangements for the Press to be present.
This is the moment to put forward one's ideas and views about what is needed to develop not only Norfolk but the South-West and, in particular, Cornwall. We have the same problems down there as elsewhere. One of the things which astonishes me when we have a debate of this kind is that every hon. Member who speaks, particularly from the other side, puts forward tremendous schemes, which would cost vast sums of money, which are vital to the area he represents. If one were to add up the cost of the various schemes put forward one would discover the figure to be astronomical.
It is all a question of priority. One has to decide whether the priority should be in one place or in another. The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) was very restrained and did not put forward the priority which in his view exists for the North-East to get an additional amount of help. I feel the same way about the South-West. We have a high unemployment rate. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South talked about the high unemployment rate in Norfolk, and the

hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) told the House that many young people left Norfolk to find employment elsewhere. This is a problem in the South-West, too. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, there is a great outflow of people from the South-West to industry elsewhere. They leave the area, not because they want to—and I am sure that this also applies to Norfolk—but simply because there are no employment opportunities available for them in the area.
The Local Employment Act, brought in by the previous Government in 1960, has gone a long way to ameliorate the situation, certainly in the South-West. It has brought industry to the area. I do not want to weary the House by reciting the places to which the industries have gone, or naming the industries, but one town which springs to mind is Bodmin, where five factories have been built during the last five years. There has also been industrial development in the Camborne and Redruth areas, and in other parts of the South-West, but this is not enough to satisfy the needs or the wants of the area.
It is essential to have a balanced economy at the end of the day. We hear a lot from the Government about regional planning. The purpose of regional planning must be to set up a balanced economy within the regions, and, of course, it must be controlled from regional headquarters. If I have understood the position correctly, one thing about which the Parliamentary Secretary was quite definite when he went to Cornwall and attended a meeting at Truro—this was reported in the Press and I confess that this is my only source of information—was that his right hon. Friend the First Secretary was quite adamant about Bristol being the regional headquarters, and that there was no question of that decision being changed. This was the final and fixed view of his right hon. Friend, so there was no point in discussing it at all.
This is unfortunate. I do not think that one should come to a firm conclusion without having the fullest possible consultation with the people most affected. I understand that when the hon. Gentleman was answering questions at his meeting he said that nothing would be done


by regional boards, or in the regional planning sphere, to upset the authority or the sphere of influence of the local councils, and it was his firm intention that they would not be disturbed but would be able to carry on exercising their functions. This is unsatisfactory, because there are many authorities, many people, and indeed many councils in the South-West, who are extremely unhappy about the idea of having the regional centre in Bristol.
I am not going to suggest where else it should be—

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): The hon. Member dare not name a town or he will be in trouble.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If the Under-Secretary of State wants me to go on much longer I do not mind. I am willing to discuss all the various possibilities, and the advantages of such places as Exeter, Plymouth, and so on. The hon. Member ought to know better.
As I have said, in the last few years various regional offices of the existing Ministries—the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Agriculture, and others—have been situated in Bristol, and the regional hospital board is situated there at the moment. We have, therefore, been provided with a certain amount of experience whether or not Bristol is a suitable place from which to administer the region.
People from Cornwall and Devon live a long way from Bristol and do not find it easy to get there. It takes them a long time to travel there by train. Bristol is, therefore, an unsuitable centre for people who live in the two counties on the peninsula. With that experience in mind, I hope that the hon. Member and the Secretary of State will not take such a rigid view on the matter, but will consult the authorities yet again in order to see whether it is possible to change the decision that Bristol shall be the regional centre. Perhaps it will be found possible to place it in a more suitable location, where the two extreme counties of the peninsula will not feel so out of touch.
I also understand, from the same Press report, that when the hon. Member was talking in Truro on Monday he said that he could not give any promises or assurances

that any sub-committees of the regional board or consultative council would be set up in Devon or Cornwall, or even in other counties, such as Gloucester or Worcester. He said that it was something that would have to be considered for the future. I do not wish to pursue the point, but if that was said it was regrettable, because the best amelioration of the position if he refuses to change his decision would be to have sub-committees representing the interests of Devon and Cornwall.
From the debates that we have had I understand that regional councils and consultative councils are of a purely consultative character. Nevertheless, they are of considerable importance, and there are two points in connection with them on which I should like some clarification. First—and this must apply in other regions as well—we must be certain that all the county councils will be represented on them. I am not sure that this will be the case in the South-West. I believe that 16 places are available, but if we list the number of counties concerned we find that there will not be enough places for all the counties to be represented on the consultative council. I hope that this will not prove to be the case. I hope that the council will adequately represent the views of all the counties, that it covers.
Further, I understand that it is the plan of the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State that officials should be eligible for appointment to these bodies; there is to be a choice between officials and elected representatives. That is an altogether unsatisfactory situation.
I turn now to the immediate point of the debate, namely economic development. In the South-West we want a balanced development. Our main industries are agriculture—as is the case in Norfolk—and tourism. We hope that the Government, when planning for the future and considering what development shall take place in the South-West, will see that those two industries thrive.
During the past four months, under the present Government, the effect has been exactly the opposite. Costs have risen in the agricultural industry and also in the hotel and catering industries. Costs have gone up in the South-West, and it must be appreciated that these costs have he could not give any promises or assur-


for the coming season. The hoteliers now face increased costs with no way in which they may recuperate themselves without running the risk of upsetting their clientele. Apart from the main industries of tourism and agriculture, we want a continuation of light industrial development in the South-West. It is not a suitable area for heavy industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his Department will do everything possible to help the extension of the kind of industry which we want, light engineering, electronics, and so on. The more help we get in respect of this type of industry the better it will be.
The hon. Member for King's Lynn spoke of the necessity of having a survey in relation to unemployment. The hon. Gentleman was referring to the situation in Norfolk. In the South-West there is a great deal of hidden unemployment, but at the same time the figures from the employment exchanges are not always a true indication of the position because they include people who have gone to the South-West for early retirement and have no intention of working. They may register as unemployed, but they have no intention of taking up employment. There is a great deal of unemployment, particularly among women I do not think a proper survey has ever been carried out so the true position may become apparent. I should perhaps refer to the employment potential of the area rather than to the amount of unemployment. It is more important to ascertain the employment potential than to discover how many people are unemployed. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to this and see whether it is possible for such a survey to be made in the near future, perhaps in co-operation with private enterprise and firms such as A.I.C.
We must not forget the importance of road transport in Norfolk and in the South-West. The Government must continue to pay attention to this matter. During the past five years, under the previous Government, there was a great expansion in the amount of money spent on road communications in the South-West, but not sufficient was provided to clear up the problem. I know that this is another question of priorities. When the hon. Gentleman went to Truro and to Plymouth he was told that more money

was needed to make sure that the arteries of commerce in the South-West were kept clear and working properly.
I cannot stress too highly the absolute necessity of having a sufficient road scheme and sufficient funds allocated to see that this is built in the South-West. If we are to develop at all down there, if we are to get beyond our existing position of having a prosperous agricultural industry and a fairly prosperous hotel industry—which is prosperous in the summer months but not in the winter—we must have an important system of roads going into the South-West, so that we can not only have our raw materials coming in more quickly and more cheaply but also so that personnel can come up and down these arteries as well.
While on that subject, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look very seriously into the possibility of expanding the Port of Plymouth as far as civil contracts, as opposed to naval contracts, are concerned. Over the past generations they have been mainly concerned with naval affairs. At the moment, I believe they have a contract in hand. This is splendid for the employment position of those working on naval contracts. There is still a great deal of spare capacity at Falmouth. I hope that these two ports will be looked into very carefully to see how quickly and how much their industrial capacity can be extended in the near future, what the cost of this would be and whether it can be rationalised. I hope that it can be. If this can be done there is a tremendous future for light industry in the South-West. The two ports of Falmouth and Plymouth would form splendid outlets, not only for the light industry which we have at the moment but, perhaps, for even heavier industry and certainly for light industry with export potential
Of course, if this were to be so, it would be essential for the railways we hear so much about to be maintained as well. In the recent Beeching plan, I saw that one of the main fast lines was to be down to Plymouth. That is splendid, but after Plymouth there was, on paper, a weaker line. I hope that, at some future time, the Minister of Transport will issue an assurance to the West Country that the main line services will continue in the future, right the way down


to Penzance on that main line. The rest we must leave for the moment.
One great problem in developing the South-West is the trend of our young people to leave this beautiful part of England and go elsewhere to seek employment. At the moment they can get a very good education in the South-West, but they have to go elsewhere for employment. Education, of course, is developing all the time. We are even talking about a university of Cornwall. I believe that the Minister was asked whether he could approve a university of Cornwall being built under the new plan for the expansion of universities.
I understand that he did not commit himself on this, which was very wise. I hope that he will think over very carefully the arguments put to him for expanding university capacity in the South-West. I hope that the claims of Cornwall to be one of the sites of a new university, which he was asked about when he was down in Truro, will be borne in mind and that he will ponder very seriously about them.
I have taken the attention of the House away from Norfolk. I do not feel quite so guilty as I might have done if we had not had interventions from the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) as well. I think that it is only right, when we are talking about a rural area with problems of agriculture, of hidden unemployment and of the need to develop its economy, that comparable areas such as Norfolk should be borne in mind by the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend when they are drawing up their plans for development.
It would be the most heinous crime if additional funds were funnelled into Norfolk at the expense of the South-West or if the needs of the South-West went by default. That is one of my purposes in bringing to the Parliamentary Secretary's mind once again the pressing needs which we have in the South-West. I am sure that he must bear them in mind and that he must tell his right hon. Friend about our problems.
I was not there when he visited the area last Monday. I hope that when he comes again in the near future I shall have the opportunity of being there with

him and talking over with him the problems which we have in the South-West. I am glad that he went there, and I hope to see him there again soon.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) for introducing this Adjournment debate. I believe that wise planning is the cornerstone of whatever prospect there is for this country.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) referred to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) in taking us up to Scotland. We have been almost round the British Isles. I want to direct my hon. Friend's attention to the problems in a new town when industry is being brought into the town and when, because of the existing regulations, people who are already in the new town are told, when they apply for jobs in the modern factories, that regulations prohibit the employment exchange from letting them have such jobs. These people still have to travel out of town, as they have done for many years, to their work.
I am talking about Skelmersdale. This situation represents a ridiculous anomaly, because these people in Skelmersdale have waited a long time for new industry to be directed there. The industry has gone there because a new town has been designated. The purpose of the new town is to help to solve the big problem of Liverpool in rehousing and giving employment to its people. I wonder whether the Minister would look at this problem of allowing people in a developing new town to find employment in the factories. The development corporation has tried to get the Minister to see this point of view and to give permission for people who live in Skelmersdale to be employed in these factories.
Skelmersdale is an old town which, years and years ago, depended on the pits. The last pit to be worked there closed in 1938. The majority of the men came to the pit in which I was branch secretary. They have all had to live in Skelmersdale and to travel to the various pits in Wigan and St. Helens.
This is a very serious problem for these people. It may well be that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. But unless


somebody gives this permission, the ridiculous anomaly will persist. New industries come into an expanding town, but the people already living there are told, "These jobs are not for you. You must continue to travel to your present job, or find another job to which you will also travel. You cannot work in Skelmersdale".

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the hon. Member saying that there is direction of labour and that when new industry is brought into the town people who live there cannot get jobs in it? I cannot believe that he means that, but that is what he said. It implies some kind of direction of labour.

Mr. McGuire: Skelmersdale is being built up as a developing new town. It already has a population of 6,000. There is no industry worth speaking of in Skelmersdale. New factories have been built there and others will be built there. The factories are advertising for labour. Men who live in Skelmersdale, but who, for the last 30 years or so, have had to travel to neighbouring towns to get work—and who have travelled back to live in Skelmersdale because they like it—have applied for these jobs and have been told by the employment exchange that these jobs are not for people already living in Skelmersdale.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If a man wishes to apply to the management of a factory for a job he does not have to get permission from the employment exchange to take that job if he gets it; that is, unless the hon. Member is saying that in his part of the country there is direction of labour. There is no sanction here. If an employer wishes to take on an employee, and if that employee is capable of doing the job, surely the employment exchange cannot refuse to allow the employer to take him on or refuse to allow the employee to accept the job.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Is not all this talk about direction of labour in these circumstances absurd, and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to be an intervention upon an intervention which, at any stage, is difficult. I am a little concerned about my duty to the Minister. What he had notice of,

presumably, was the subject of the economic development of Norfolk. It has always been the practice of my predecessors and myself to discourage in debates on the Adjournment discussion of a topic of which the Minister has not had notice. I think that hon. Members should bear this in mind.

Mr. Popplewell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not correct to say that your predecessors and, I believe, yourself, have in the past ruled that in an Adjournment debate hon. Members can discuss questions not directly concerned with the subject of the Adjournment and that their speeches can range very far and wide? Although an hon. Member in this position, making such observations, could not possibly expect a reply from the Minister to the points he is raising, does he not have the privilege, in An Adjournment debate, of ranging fairly wide in his remarks? Am I not correct, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. Everything the hon. Member says is correct upon an Adjournment debate. He or any other hon. Member would be entitled to raise any topic on the Adjournment and, curiously enough, what I said is also correct. The practice of the Chair has been to discourage discussion on matters which would produce an ex parte statement because the Minister would not have had warning of them. That is all.

Mr. Popplewell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) was referring to the direction of labour while intervening in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire). Is it not correct to say that we have had a negative direction of labour for a considerable number of years because no jobs were available?

Mr. Speaker: With respect, that is a different point. Whether in Adjournment debates or at any other time we do not allow interventions upon interventions, as they represent an interruption of the time available to the hon. Member who is speaking.

Mr. Popplewell: I have no desire to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the privilege allowed to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North surely


we are entitled, on this side of the House, to make some reply to the matters which that hon. Member raised?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly, but I do not think that the hon. Member is following me. An hon. Member speaks. He gives way, out of courtesy, to an intervention. He may, on the spot, choose to reply to that, but what is not fair to him is that there should be an intervention upon an intervention, because that deprives him of his speaking time.

Mr. McGuire: It will appear on the record that there have been quite a few interventions.
I apologise for not extending to the Minister the traditional courtesy which, I understand, I should have extended. I do not want to suggest that I was delighted, but when I rose to my feet I had not quite got over the shock of being able to take part in tonight's Adjournment debate. Earlier in the day I did not think I would have this opportunity of speaking. The debate has certainly not petered out.
When I made an inquiry of another hon. Member, I was told, "You can go in and raise any topic you like". I thought that this would be a heaven-sent opportunity for me to speak, particularly since I had been waiting for several hours in case there might be an opportunity during the day for me to make a few comments.
When we talk about planning and development I have no reason to doubt that the position I was describing before the last series of interruptions does not exist. People cannot get jobs because they happen to live in a town which is being developed. Since I know this to be true, I considered this debate an ideal opportunity to raise the matter so that the Ministry could look into it and, if possible, remedy the situation.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: It was not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), and I respect your Ruling that the debate must not range very widely. Nevertheless, the situation in North Cornwall and in Scotland, as well as that in Norfolk, has been explained to us, and I feel that something should

be said about the general necessity of bringing new industries to the areas that need them.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) referred to the number of unemployed in Cornwall. He said that he was not sure that the figure he gave was the true one, and it may have escaped his attention that the unemployment figures were published yesterday and were the lowest for the last nine years. That is a credit to the change of Government in October, because there is no doubt that those figures reflect the state of the economy.
Although it is gratifying that unemployment has been so reduced, I would point out that in the North-East it is still twice the national average. That means that we face the same problem as exists in Norfolk and in Scotland—the drift of population to the Midlands, to London and the South generally every year—

Mr. Fell: Surely, the hon. Gentleman cannot really claim, on the one hand, that all the troubles that are now about are due entirely to the last Government and, on the other hand, that anything good now occurring is entirely due to this Government? It is ridiculous.

Mr. Fletcher: Hon. Members opposite have stated that industry has no confidence in this Government—that the import charges and the increased Bank Rate are having an effect on industry—yet, at the same time, unemployment is lower than it has been for the last nine years. That is an indication of the healthy state of the economy under the Labour Government. I am justified in making that statement, and I do so as a prelude to pointing out that in the North-East unemployment still runs at twice the national average. Every year, 10,000 families drift to the Midlands and the South in search of employment, and that has been going on practically since the end of the war.
Our problem, therefore, is to try not only to build up our economy but to attract back to the region those people who have had to seek employment in Birmingham, Coventry, Dagenham and London. We believe that, with the setting up of the regional councils, there is at last a possibility that we can plan for


the region; that in the North-East we can accommodate some of the new science-based industries that we hope to attract. We believe that a hard look should be taken to see whether Government offices can be moved, not only to the North-East but—to get back to the terms of the debate—to Norfolk or Scotland. There is no vital need for many Government offices to be situated in the London region.
That being so, we believe that it will be necessary for us to look at this regional programme in the context of a national pattern, and not to accept as inevitable—as, presumably, the previous Government did—that the population in the South-East will increase by 3½ million by the 'eighties, with all the problems of housing, traffic chaos, and the rest that such a movement would create. We believe that any rational Government would view the situation in terms of the national advantage of moving industry and offices outside the conurbations.

Mr. Prior: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) said that he wanted to change the criteria of the Local Employment Act so as to include Norwich and the Norwich area in development areas? Does the hon. Gentleman also realise that Norwich is in the South-East and is, therefore, one of the places which could have some of the extra three and a half million population?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) referred to the need to bring more industry into Norwich, so obviously the drift of the population to the South is not settling in Norfolk or Norwich. It is coming, in the main, to the Greater London area. Rather than that we should look forward to this tremendous increase in population in the 1980s, it is right for us to develop our planning organisations in the North-East to enable industry to be attracted there.
Direction of labour has been mentioned, but labour is directed at the moment. It must follow the job. If a redundant miner in Durham or a redundant railway worker in Darlington loses his job, in many instances he can secure similar skilled employment only in the Midlands or in the South. So labour is directed by economic circumstances. My right hon. Friend should consider directing

industry. I do not suggest that this could be done directly, but it could be done indirectly by the issue of I.D.C.s. For instance, the Minister could say to certain employers, "We shall not allow you to expand in the Midlands or the South-East. You must expand in an area of great unemployment". Thus it would be possible to steer industry to regions which badly need it.
Planning should not be considered in the context of what will happen in Norfolk, Scotland or Northern Ireland. We do not want to be the Cinderellas of our so-called affluent society, fighting one another. We in the North-East do not want to fight our colleagues in Norfolk or Scotland to get the crumbs which fall from the rich man's table. We should join together and ensure that we get a fair share of industry and planning. That is why I believe it is essential in the context of the national plan for us to pour more capital into development areas so as to attract industry there.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South for raising this subject, because we in the North-East face these problems. When these problems are considered by the Government, I hope that the problems facing the North-East are not overlooked.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr.Ted Fletcher) said that it would be a pity if Members from different geographical areas entered into direct conflict with each other on the question of securing greater employment in their areas. Presumably his argument is that what is required is an overall steady national economic growth so that all areas will see some expansion, but that in the meantime some priority must be given to certain areas which have a particularly difficult problem to solve.
This places the Minister in some difficulty because the debate opened with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) claiming special priority for his area, on very good grounds. My hon. Friend was followed immediately by Members from other parts of the country, in particular by a very strong contingent of my hon. Friends from the North-East, and then by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), who claimed priority for


the South-West. Everybody cannot simultaneously claim priority. This does not make any kind of sense.
Priority presumably means that some areas must be allowed prior claims over others. It is no use if tonight my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, in replying to the debate, says that he will give every consideration and priority to the areas whose claims have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South. Therefore, there must be some statement of principle as the basis in establishing priority for different parts of the country. The question of statement of principle which hon. Members representing the North-East constituencies have raised time and again concerns the difficult problem there that it is not a relatively small pocket of unemployment but a large area where two of its fundamental industries, shipping and coalmining, have been running down for a long time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington was perfectly correct in saying that although the unemployment figures released this morning show that unemployment in the North-East is less than it was a year ago, it is still twice the national average, and it is twice the national average in a substantial geographical area where millions of people whose jobs are in jeopardy live. If my hon. Friend, in reply, says that some priority will be given to Norfolk, I hope that he will explain to me, as a Member representing a north-eastern constituency with a high level of unemployment, how the Government see their commitments to the North-East in the light of the study which they are now making of the South-East.
What concerned hon. Members from the North-East towards the end of the lifetime of the previous Government was that a White Paper was published which assumed that the population of the South-East would grow over the next decade by about 3½ million and that not all of that increase would be due to natural growth. There was an assumption in the White Paper that 1 million of those people would be coming from the North and from Scotland and from other parts of the country. Some Government statements have been made in the last few

weeks about the development of the South-East, and only today at Question Time there was a reference to the present Government's study of the South-East Plan, which, perhaps quite wrongly, has been causing some consternation in the North-East.
There is some feeling in the North-East that if priority is to be given to social development and employment problems in the South-East in the course of the next few years this could run contrary to the Government's commitments to the North-East. It may be that the feelings of concern expressed in the North-East are those of people who are misinformed and that the people are unnecessarily frightened by the development, but they need reassurance. If my hon. Friend in his reply to the debate states that some priority will be given to the area covered by the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, I hope that at the same time he will explain to the House how this can be done without in any way jeopardising his commitments to the North-East.

Mr. Fell: The hon. Member seems to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. This debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) and was about the economic development of the Norfolk area. If we are to have a kind of priority scheme where only one area has priority and there is no economic development in other parts of the country, the economy of the country will come to a grinding halt. There must be economic development all over the country.

Mr. Rhodes: I am not for a moment arguing that the only area of the United Kingdom which should have any priority at all is the North-East. I am referring merely to the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, in opening the debate, that the Government have made a commitment to the North-East and he was fearful that, perhaps, their commitment to the North-East might detract from employment prospects in his own area. I am appealing to the Minister not simply to say in reply that he will help my hon. Friend and help everyone else but to state the basis of principle on which priority is allocated to one area or another. In elaborating that, have tried to explain—I am sorry that


the hon. Gentleman did not appreciate the point—that we in the North-East think that we have a strong claim, a claim, moreover, which was recognised by his Government as well as by the present Government.
I am not making a party political point out of it. For me, I have been remarkably non-partisan this evening. If I were to develop the point further, and hon. Members opposite cared to provoke me, I could be very party political about the fact that, when they were in power, one Government Department headed at the time by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was talking about economic expansion in the North-East while his right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), then Minister of Transport, was running down our railway system, without which, of course, the Hailsham plan, as it was then known, could never have worked. However, we must not digress and we must not become too partisan.

Mr. Prior: To be fair, the hon. Gentleman will agree that, at the same time, the Minister of Transport was also authorising a great deal of extra expenditure on roads in the North-East.

Mr. Rhodes: The road development plans for the North-East, which had not really got going by the time this Government took office, were no consolation to the many hundreds of my constituents living in the Heaton and Walkergate areas of East Newcastle who were thrown out of work by the policies pursued by the then Minister of Transport. Longterm road planning did not secure their employment. However, this also is a digression.
If we are to give priority to one area or another, the basis of principle for the granting of priority ought to be stated. One cannot say in every Adjournment debate about the economic problems of X, Y and Z that they all will have priority. If the Minister were to argue in that way—I am not trying to anticipate his argument—we in the North-East would begin to be concerned because, the very moment that the pressure groups from all the other parts of the United Kingdom begin to get their way, the Government's plan for the North-East is immediately jeopardised. This is why

hon. Members who came in after hearing that the debate was widening were largely from the North-Eastern constituencies.
We are pleased in the North-East that the unemployment level this month is markedly lower than it was a year ago, but the fact remains that it is still 3·1 per cent., more than twice the national average. Ours is the area of the three rivers, the Tyne, the Wear and the Tees, a substantial area geographically with a substantial labour force.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North—I do not think that he is here now—referred to the need for a new university in the South-West. There is a strong case for arguing that we could have too many universities in this country. There is a strong case for saying that the economic size of operation for universities is a student population of about 10,000. Already in the South-West there is a relatively new university going through a phase of considerable expansion and growth. Without in any way claiming to have greater knowledge of that area than the hon. Gentleman who represents part of it, I suggest that we should be very careful about establishing our priorities and not try to please everyone all over the country by planting a university on his doorstep.
There may be a case for another university in the North-East. Perhaps we shall have an announcement about that in the not too distant future. But the idea of the proliferation of small universities with student populations of about 2,000 is not good educational administration. There is a case, however, for arguing that, as an essential part of the economic growth of a major industrial region, there should be a technological university and there is not, as yet, a major technologcal institution of university status in the North-East.
If one wants to argue in terms of priority between having a new university in the South-West, where there is already a relatively new one, and a new university in the North-East, I could develop, if there were time, an overwhelming argument for saying that the North-East should have priority.
The main factor, however, is the basic need for national economic growth, but


that cannot come substantially in a fortnight or in 100 days, although one hopes that it will come in much less than 13 years. Short of a major national economic growth as the immediate solution to the immediate problem, some basic priority has to be established and I am curious to know on what principles of priority the Government are operating.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I am very tempted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, East (Mr. Rhodes) on the subject of universities and to press the claim of Sunderland, which has a major technical institution, but perhaps that would be going too wide after the advice you have given us, Mr. Speaker.
I am amazed at the way in which hon. Members opposite have repeatedly pressed upon Ministers that priority should be given to their own regions. Today at Question Time my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs was pressed for an assurance that the Government would interfere as little as possible with private industry in certain developments that were to take place. But no one would imagine, judging by the number of times that the need for new industry in different areas has been raised by hon. Members opposite since October, that, for the greater part of the time they occupied this side of the House, "planning" was a dirty word that must not be used.
They swept away the controls, and it is because they did so and reversed the policy being followed between 1945 and 1951 that my hon. Friends from the North-East have had to plead the cause of the North-East here tonight.
Another thing that amazes me is the way in which it is still assumed widely that it is easier to move communities than to move industries. We all realise that there was a time in our history when industry, particularly heavy industry, had to be located in particular places—at the mouths of rivers or in coalfields—near the supplies of raw materials. These considerations have now gone and it is far easier now to move industries than it is to move communities.
That is the general burden of complaint in my part of the North-East. With great respect to my hon. Friends who have put the claims for their areas, I come from a part of the North-East which the Hailsham Report sentenced to death. The Report told us quite plainly that social and economic investment would have to remain static there, that when the Government were considering making investments they would have to leave my area of the North-East out of their thinking. We were described as a travel-to-work area. When I was there, 95 per cent. of the boys who left the village school which I attended went into the mining industry. Today, less than 10 per cent. enter the mining industry.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

Mr. Armstrong: Today, there is a complete change. Youngsters leaving the village school which I attended have little or no opportunity of work. If they lived in the area which I represent, they would feel that conditions are worse now than they were in the darkest period of the 1930s.
I grew up in that area in the 1930s. We always believed that when things got better the pits would reopen and employment would be available. Now, coke works, pits, and so on, have been dismantled completely. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State paid us the honour of visiting the constituency at the beginning of the year, and my constituents and I are very grateful to him. He realises the very serious situation which exists in my part of the country. It is monstrous that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money are being poured out to make life barely tolerable in the immediate area of this House, in the Greater London area and the South-East, and yet there are wide open spaces in the area which I represent where little or no development has taken place.
I cannot escape blaming the previous Administration which, for 13 years, allowed the position to get worse, and finally, when Lord Hailsham, as he then was, made his report, they condemned us


to death. At the same time as we were being designated as a travel-to-work area and many people were being told that they must travel as far as Darlington and Aycliffe to find work the Minister of Transport in the Conservative Administration was closing railway lines and making it almost impossible to travel.
One hon. Member opposite said that there had been a great increase in expenditure on modernising the roads in the North-East. None of it came to any area west of the Great North Road. The administration of that time believed that when they talked about the North-East they were referring to Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Sunderland and forgot altogether the tremendous area west of the Great North Road which in earlier days made such a great contribution to the prosperity of our country. It is most depressing to visit communities which are being allowed steadily to die.
I am glad to say that, since October and the announcement of the new regional organisation and the announcement by the President of the Board of Trade of a new advance factory at Crook, we have been looking forward to a complete reversal of the policy outlined in the Hailsham plan. We are now assured by the Government that the region will be considered as a whole and we look forward to the setting up of the boards and council so that our area may have its rightful share of development. What has happened over the past 13 years in our part of the country has been one of the cruellest things that could possibly have come to any community.
It is monstrous that year after year, despite the pleas of my predecessor, industry was allowed to decline and run down and finally, after 11 years of power, the Tory Government produced the report which said to our people, "There is no hope for you. You must be prepared to travel every day to work. At the same time, we will make it almost impossible for you to travel by closing the railways." Now, we look to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary and the Department of which he is such an important representative to plan the region so that my people will be able to work in the area, which has so much to offer in so many ways, and that we might make our contribution to the prosperity of the nation.

10.6 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): During the last two and a half hours, we have heard a dozen or so speakers and I wish that I felt free to range as widely as they have done. I have been sorely tempted by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), whose constituency I nearly visited on my journey to Cornwall earlier this week, by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), to whose constituency, in which Skelmersdale is situated, I paid a visit earlier this year, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) whose constituency I have also visited this year; but it would be lack of courtesy on my part to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood), who initiated this debate, if I were to range as widely as that and if he had the misfortune for the problems which he has raised to be smothered in replies to other issues which have come up during the last two and a half hours.
For that reason, I am not in the schizophrenic position which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) suggested in having to try to give a satisfactory and happy reply to all the demands which have been made upon me. I can only say of the number of wide-ranging points which have been made, which are clearly of considerable consequence to hon. Members who have raised them, that we shall take note of them and I shall endeavour to help as far as possible in solving them.
Perhaps I should say, for the benefit of those hon. Members who may have missed the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, that they were in every sense wise and moderate and that there was little which he said which could be—

Mr. Fell: Mr. Fell rose—

Mr. Rodgers: It would be helpful if, at the end of two and a half hours, I was allowed to reply to the debate.
There was little in the remarks of my hon. Friend who initiated this debate which would conflict in any way with what may have been said later, particularly about priorities in industry. I shall come on to this presently and I will, perhaps, show that the approach of


the Government to the problem of industrial location is one which recognises priorities but also recognises the subtleties of the problem with which we are dealing.

Mr. Prior: On a point of order. Should not we adjourn the debate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to enable the hon. Members for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) and King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page)—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has been a Member of the House long enough to know that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Rodgers: I in no sense misunderstand the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South during my opening remarks, as he would have found difficulty in knowing precisely when I would reach a position when I could reply to what he has said.
I wish, in a sense, that the long period which we have had this evening was due more to a positive wish to discuss the problems of Norfolk and other parts of the country than to a negative desire to avoid discussing other matters which we have had today.
During the last three months we have had a number of very helpful debates on specific problems affecting different parts of the country, and I am sure that there is an advantage in dealing with them in this way and trying to locate the problems and see how a solution can be found to them which will fit in with our overall regional planning.
I think that in every respect this debate has justified and shown fully the need for the new regional machinery which the Government are setting up, because there are problems in every region, there are problems between regions, and there are national problems of accommodating growing population and achieving economic growth. I should like to believe that between all those present tonight there was no question but that the object of the Government's policy in this respect should be to make sure that prosperity is fairly and widely shared. In achieving this we shall be dealing with the problems of those areas which still have a high level of unemployment, but at the same time trying to deal with the real problems which my hon. Friend indicated in opening the debate.
My hon. Friend also mentioned that the problems of the location of industry, the provision of housing, and communications, go together in proper and effective planning, and the Department of Economic Affairs exists for the precise purpose of bringing together these different disciplines. Each in its separate way contributes to economic strength, and if they are considered separately, wrong decisions can be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) raised a particular point. He apologised for having to be absent when I would be replying to the debate, but I assure him we shall look at the problem he mentioned. We appreciate the force of what he said and the importance to King's Lynn of getting a decision about the future of this industrial site. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has not yet decided what procedure he will follow, but I will convey to him the views expressed by my hon. Friend on this matter. My hon. Friend said that he hoped it was the job of the Department to unsnarl blockages. We have many responsibilities, and this is certainly one of them.
I turn for a moment to deal with the specific nature of the problems in Norfolk. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South said, Norfolk is one of the largest counties. In many ways its economic structure is relatively stable. I think that the burden of much that my hon. Friend said was that a county which is stable in its economic structure does not stand still, but in the long run moves backwards when the country is advancing.
It is a county which is predominantly rural and agricultural. We know that in all parts of the country there is a tendency for a drift from the land, and so we see in Norfolk a rise in population which has been smaller in the last ten years than the rise in population in the country as a whole. Between 1951 and 1961 in Norfolk there was an increase of 0·23 per cent. per annum in population compared with an increase of 0·51 per cent. per annum in England and Wales. These factors are significant, particularly when they are taken together with the change in the age structure in the remainder of the population. There are fewer people in Norfolk, proportionately, under the age of 15, and more over the age of 65, than in the country as a whole.
As I think the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said, the drift of skill is something which must always give us concern. My hon. Friend said in passing that there was more diversity of industry in Norfolk than was sometimes supposed to be the case. This is one factor which indicates a reasonable prospect for the future. There is a considerable diversity of employment, although in Norfolk we see the changes which we can also discover elsewhere. The decline in agriculture which I mentioned is matched by an increase in employment in services. This is the pattern that we see elsewhere.
I agree with my hon. Friend that to the extent that we can diversify the industry of a county further and ensure that industries with real natural growth potential are located in the county we will help to strengthen its economic fabric and guarantee jobs not only for the present generation, but for future generations which, we hope, will make Norfolk their home rather than seek employment outside.
My hon. Friend made a number of very perceptive remarks about industrial location policy. I should be happy to pursue at length the points that he raised and also to set them against a number of points raised by others of my hon. Friends, including, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East. I will say simply, however, that it is true that the main factor which determines where development districts are, and where new employment should be located, is high and persistent unemployment. I do not doubt for a moment that all hon. Members will agree that there must be priority in providing jobs for men who are out of work.
After that, a number of other factors arise which should be looked at. First, there is the question of the desirability of concentrating growth in those points which look as if they have a real potential for maintaining a strong industrial growth and for providing employment. I entirely share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West about the policy of the late Government in this respect, but I am sure that he and I would be one in recognising that choosing sites with a potential for growth is one of the complications for government in deciding location policy.
I now return to the remarks of my hon. Friend about wage levels and activity rates. These affect not only Norwich. They affect, for example, parts of Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire. I am inclined to agree that when deciding where industry should go we should not fail to recognise the hardship which could be caused partly by low wages but also by a smaller total participation of the potential of manpower in the economic life of a town, county or region in which it is situated.
In the review of location of industry policy which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has in mind, these are factors to which he will certainly pay attention, although it would be wrong for me to anticipate any of the conclusions which may be reached, and I am certainly not trying to do so in my remarks.
In our attitude to industrial development certificates for Norfolk, and especially Norwich, we recognise the need for some industrial development, and we wish it to be as well-founded and as suitable to the county and the city as is compatible with our other obligations in different parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn referred to something to which he attached a good deal of importance bearing on the question of wage rates. He was distressed by the fact that no earnings figures were available for the county of Norfolk. I am sure that he will know that we have inherited very inadequate regional statistics. We are hoping to put this right, but it would be a mistake to promise that in the short-run we shall also be able to provide statistics for the counties which all of us in principle would like to see available.
Communications have been discussed. We recognise, of course, that communications remain the sinews of economic growth. I thought that my hon. Friend took a rather gloomy view about the future of the railways. I am sure he would not dissent from the view that our means of communication must change as our requirements change, and a railway system which was established 100 years ago may not wholly meet the needs of the mid-twentieth century.
The important thing, however, is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of


Transport has given a very clear undertaking—which was not given by the previous Minister and which I am sure will satisfy my hon. Friend—that any decision at all about the closure of branch lines will be looked at exceedingly carefully in the light of regional policy. The burden of the complaint from this side of the House is that closures were not tested against regional needs. This was the objection which I am sure was sometimes found to be justified in the light of circumstances. We want to get right our priorities for planning our transport system. I understand the impatience of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn, after the years of neglect, but I cannot promise that by tomorrow the problems of 13 years will be cured. Certainly, we shall be tackling them in a forceful, effective and very rapid way.
Several points were raised about the future of Norfolk ports about which I ought to say something. There has been a considerable growth of traffic through these ports in the last few years and this is something which we can welcome. It may well be—I hope that this will be the case—that in the long run these ports have a considerable future in terms of the exports from the Midlands and the South. It may be that they have a potential in the developing of the roll-on roll-off container services, for which some of us see a considerable future. I understand that these are developing rapidly at Felixstowe and Harwich and Immingham further north. It may be that some further developments in this direction will help King's Lynn and also Great Yarmouth, but I think there are problems about the depth of water available.

Mr. Prior: Can the Minister give an assurance that the closure of the East Suffolk railway line from Dereham to King's Lynn will not take place until the new plan for the south-east region is announced?

Mr. Rogers: I do not intend to give any specific assurance of that kind. The point I was making, which after all is the important one, is that any decision should be looked at in regional terms and this is what is being done now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, had a number of remarks

to make about office development which I think at one time were a little misunderstood. I understood him clearly to say that he wanted to see a planned dispersal. He did not want the haphazard pushing of offices to Norwich. He thought that an unsatisfactory way to deal with the problem. In reviewing the South-East Study we have in mind the need to find suitable locations for planned office dispersal. I am sure that he and others will find that the decisions reached by this Government, to check office development in the London area, will turn out to be the right ones and will benefit other parts of the country where the economy needs to be strengthened. We all recognise that office development provides a great deal more employment than that provided for the people who work in the offices themselves.
I said in my opening remarks that I had had the good fortune in the last six weeks or so to visit a number of parts of the country and to see for myself, on the spot, the problems with which they are dealing. May I say that I would be more than happy to visit Norfolk in the near future and to see at first hand some of the important matters which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South and other hon. Members.
There was only one point during the debate when for a moment I doubted the wisdom of this. It was when the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) referred to Norfolk as being the vegetable garden of the South-East. I know the point which he was making, but for a moment I thought that visiting a vegetable garden would be a less happy outcome than I would expect in visiting a county which I know has a much greater reputation than that as a place which people want to visit.

Mr. Fell: I think that the Under-Secretary missed the point which I was making. This point was in connection with the industry which has grown up out of its being the centre of an enormous vegetable growing area. There are the great canning businesses and food businesses generally.

Mr. Rodgers: I fully understood the hon. Member's point.
The important thing within the county is obviously to get a proper balance in every possible way. What I think is a


very refreshing aspect of this debate is the recognition that the proper preservation of amenity—Norfolk is a very attractive county—can go hand in hand with the development of a sound economic structure. It is not necessary to choose between becoming a rural backwater and providing the industry and employment which will retain the population. I am sure that we can find a proper balance.
Norfolk is a county with a noble and distinguished past with much to offer, not only to those who live and work there, but to those who are fortunate enough to holiday in that part of the world. It is one of the purposes of the new regional planning machinery to make sure that what is good in what exists today is preserved, but, equally important, that Norfolk—as other parts of the country—is prosperous and provides employment opportunities, not, as I say, only for those who live today but for other generations with whom, I hope, we are all wholly concerned.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman was less than fair—and I hope that he will correct this—in talking about the 1960 Local Employment Act. He gave

the impression that it had done nothing to correct the difficulties which were encountered in the last five years. I hope that he will pay sufficient tribute to what has been done under that Act, the amount of money spent and the amount of industry sited—not only in the South-West but, I am sure, in East Anglia as well and the beneficial effects which the Act has had.

Mr. Rodgers: I have no doubt that some merits flowed from the Local Employment Acts of 1960 and 1963, but I hope that the hon. Member is not saying that he is satisfied with the results. I am sure that we cannot be satisfied when we find unemployment as high as it still is today in some parts of the country and we also have to deal with the problems of low wages and low activity rates which have been mentioned.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the Local Employment Acts stimulated the pipeline industry?

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.